PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Development Agency Bill (By  Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 May.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Illegal Imports

Nicholas Winterton: What recent steps she has taken to prevent the passage of illegally imported meat and plants at United Kingdom sea ports and airports.

Margaret Beckett: On 21 March I hosted a forum on illegal imports at which all key interests were represented, including farmers, the food industry and enforcement agencies. Subsequent discussions agreed the range of measures included in the detailed action plan, published on 28 March, to reduce the risk of exotic animal and plant disease. That plan included commitments to, for example, giving enforcement officers new powers to search luggage for illegal imports of meat and improving co-operation between agencies. We are pursuing the action plan as a matter of priority.

Nicholas Winterton: The dairy and livestock industries of our country were devastated last year by foot and mouth, which is thought to have entered the country in imported meat or meat products. The countryside and farming remain in crisis. What action is the Secretary of State prepared to take following the recently reported comments of Professor Peter Smith, chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, one of the Government's own bodies, who warned that imported meat products such as pâtés and sausages could contain BSE or other diseases because they are not subject to the same stringent controls as meat produced in this country?

Margaret Beckett: I have not seen Professor Smith's comments. We have strict controls on meat imports. I will not list them, but all consignments of fresh meat are subject to veterinary inspection, and various documentary and physical checks are applied. If Professor Smith has evidence to suggest that there are problems with those checks, of course we will look into it. We are taking steps to strengthen the controls and their enforcement, and we are also carrying out a substantial risk assessment to guide us to where we should put further and more effective measures if those are required.
	It will always be the case, however, that we cannot reduce risk to zero. We have to reduce it to the lowest possible level, however. We also have to ensure that arrangements are in place to tackle disease outbreaks, should they occur. It is a twin-sided problem and it has to be a twin-sided approach.

Harry Barnes: Five growth stimulants are banned under European Union directives because they are considered to have an adverse effect on the food chain. What action is taken to ensure that there is a level playing field when it comes to imports, so that we can be sure that those growth stimulants have not been used on poultry or other meat products imported to this country?

Margaret Beckett: There is no special regime for growth hormones, as I am sure my hon. Friend accepts, but there is a regime for control of material for human consumption that comes into this country. That depends heavily on local authority inspection and controls, and every effort is made to ensure that those controls are effective. The enforcing authorities do watch out for the use of growth hormones.

Roy Beggs: Can the Secretary of State assure us that meat plants outside the United Kingdom are subjected to the same level of random and notified inspections as our meat plants, to ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained at all times?

Margaret Beckett: Obviously there are slightly different arrangements depending on whether the plant in question is elsewhere in the European Union or in a third country. There certainly are stringent checks, however. With regard to third countries, the European Commission's food and veterinary office is responsible for carrying out such inspections. Within the European Union, there is a common regime, of which Britain is a part.

Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is futile to expect any Government to seal our borders? In spite of the strenuous and expensive efforts made by Governments, they have all seen a huge increase in contraband—cigarettes, alcohol and illegal drugs—flowing into this country. It is impossible to ensure that no infected meat gets through. If there is another outbreak of foot and mouth, or some other disease, surely the best way to combat it is by restricting unnecessary animal movements and by the judicious use of vaccination?

Margaret Beckett: All the issues that my hon. Friend raises about controlling disease once it is detected are kept under careful consideration. On his opening remark, I fear that he is correct. As I told the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), it is not possible to devise a regime that can eliminate all risk. It is a case of reducing that risk to the lowest possible level.
	My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point about the flow of meat and other products within the European Union. Under single market rules, there are not routine checks of every consignment. However, there are random and non-discriminatory spot checks, which are carried out at the place of destination.

James Paice: The Secretary of State is right to say that we cannot eliminate risk. However, anyone who has travelled to the United States, Australia or New Zealand, for example, knows that there is a huge gulf between the precautions taken in those countries to minimise the risk of illegal imports and the precautions that are taken in the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Lady understand that it is a matter not only of powers, important as they may be, but of diligence and commitment on the part of the Government to try to ensure that people understand fully that they should not be bringing in the produce, and that if they do so they will be detected and stopped?

Margaret Beckett: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but, the circumstances in the countries to which he has referred are different. I am not entirely sure whether there is as great a discrepancy in the precautions that we take as there is in publicity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we are doing what we can to increase public attention, and I hope that we will continue to do more.
	There may not be the same gap in enforcement as there is in perception. We are continuing to discuss with airlines, for example, whether there is more that can be done in terms of travellers, whether at the place where they board, during the flight, or whatever. We are having discussions with other transport operators. They were all part of the discussions that took place at the general meeting that I held.
	There is a major difference between us and the countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If he thinks of his experience, information and guidance for travellers is often given through the completion of a landing card. But European Union travellers, including British citizens, do not have to fill out landing cards. We are discussing with the airlines whether there is a procedure that can be adopted. We could not introduce landing cards per se without primary legislation.
	Many of the other players are not keen to take further action, which would be costly and involve a good deal of work for them. Risk assessment is the key to getting their co-operation, if we conclude following that assessment that further action is needed. I hope that we shall obtain that co-operation in the not too distant future.

David Lidington: The Department's Minister in the Lords has said that last year, despite the devastation wrought by the foot and mouth outbreak, there were only three prosecutions for offences involving illegal meat imports. Why does the right hon. Lady think the total was so low?

Margaret Beckett: I would have to examine individual cases. There is the issue of whether controls and operations should be directed primarily at enforcement or prosecution. There is scope for prosecutions, and such prosecutions occur from time to time, not least of commercial importers.
	The reasons for the risk assessment are twofold. One is to determine whether the greatest risk comes from commercial imports that are illegal, or from individual imports. The second is to ascertain exactly how we can best target the enforcement that we undertake.
	Perhaps the few prosecutions that take place are evidence of successful deterrence and detection more than anything else. We agree and accept that it is important to keep the right balance. I shall now do what I should have done at the outset, and welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box.

David Lidington: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind remarks. I place on record my appreciation of the work done on this brief by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
	Surely more than 12 months after the foot and mouth outbreak started, the right hon. Lady should realise that when we have more than 800 seizures of illegal imported meat and only three prosecutions, when the Department's Minister in the Lords is admitting that since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease no additional resources have been allocated for meat import controls at Heathrow airport, and when responsibility for controls and checks on meat imports is still divided between six different public agencies, it is hardly a surprise that the Department, in the view of farmers, especially livestock farmers, has become a byword for delay and incompetence.

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that his question may be based on a misapprehension. I do not have the detailed answer given by my noble Friend in the House of Lords, but I have now turned up the figures on prosecutions and think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to prosecutions for trade in endangered species, which also involves illegal meat imports and is a completely separate matter.

David Lidington: indicated dissent

Margaret Beckett: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, from memory, I am not aware that there is any evidence of imports of things like bush meat, wrong as they are and much as we must stamp them out, leading to outbreaks of animal disease. However, I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that there are two sides—

David Lidington: It is in Hansard.

Margaret Beckett: Well, with great respect, the fact that the hon. Gentleman has it on paper does not mean that it is right. My figures on the three prosecutions in the past year are specifically for international trade in endangered species. Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a diversity—if he likes, a plethora—of agencies dealing with those issues, but that regime was not introduced by this Government. We are dealing with the issue as we find it.

Keith Simpson: Blame it on someone else.

Margaret Beckett: I was not blaming the previous Government; I was simply making a statement. The fact is, the Conservatives presided over the regime of divided responsibilities that we have inherited. We are doing more to give effective powers, for example, to local authority inspectors—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady's reply is far too long. I call Mr. Chaytor.

Sustainable Development Summit

David Chaytor: What action she has taken to influence the agenda of the world summit on sustainable development.

Margaret Beckett: As my Department has the policy lead on sustainable development, I have taken every opportunity both within the European Union and internationally to put across the United Kingdom view so that we can ensure that our priorities influence the agenda for the summit. Earlier in the year, I visited South Africa, the host country, to see for myself how the preparations for the summit were progressing. Most recently I held bilaterals with key players in the margins of the G8 environment meeting and will shortly attend the final ministerial Prepcom hosted by Indonesia.

David Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. May I draw her attention to early-day motion 1299, which states the case for making programmes of clean energy a priority of the Johannesburg agenda? Does she agree that it is not a question of environmental objectives being in competition with social and developmental objectives at Johannesburg, and that clean energy programmes are the fundamental prerequisite for successful poverty reduction?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point; there is every prospect of clean energy programmes being a priority at the summit, as that has a great deal of support in the EU and beyond, in the United States and the G8. My hon. Friend is right about what sustainable development means, but it is important that environmental issues be balanced against social and economic issues. I certainly share his view that that is an important and basic issue in tackling poverty; one is not in competition with the other.

Malcolm Bruce: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). There is a real will in the developing world for a positive commitment to providing renewable energy for the poorest people, and I hope that the British Government will be instrumental in bringing that about. Given that the right hon. Lady is about to go to the final ministerial preparatory meeting in Bali, will she undertake to return to the House and make a full statement about its results and the preparation that will be developed at Johannesburg? We had a good debate in the House yesterday, but seven Members from four political parties were unable to speak because time ran out. It behoves the Government to provide time to tell us what is going on and ensure that the House plays a full part.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should know that the control of the agenda of the House is no longer a matter for me. To a certain extent, he should make his appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Of course, I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am more than willing to consider making a statement to the House if I feel that there is something of substance to say when we return from Bali. I certainly hope that there will be.

David Borrow: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and look forward to her return from Bali and a statement thereafter. What provision will her Department be making to ensure that not only Members of Parliament, but members of non-governmental organisations in the UK, will have the opportunity to be consulted between the meeting in Bali and the conference in Johannesburg in September?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Preparations for the summit go back a considerable time, and from the outset, representatives of the business community, non-governmental organisations and others have been involved in preparations for the world summit. My hon. Friend asks me to ensure that that continues. He and the House may like to know that we have kept places on the official UK delegation not only for members from the devolved Administrations, the business community, local authorities and the Sustainable Development Commission, but also for NGOs. We anticipate continuing to keep them briefed during the meetings, as we have done in the past.

David Lidington: We wish the right hon. Lady well at the forthcoming summit and hope that there is international agreement that brings about a marked increase in the well-being and quality of life of people throughout the world. We look forward to the right hon. Lady's report back to Parliament on her return. I draw her attention to the recent report of the Labour-dominated Environmental Audit Committee, which pointed out that few Government Departments consider sustainable development central to their activities. Given the importance that the right hon. Lady rightly attaches to that agenda, why have her Cabinet colleagues been so reluctant to take seriously what she and the Deputy Prime Minister have been urging them to do?

Margaret Beckett: That is not quite what the Environmental Audit Committee's report stated. However, it correctly drew attention to the fact that it is extremely important that sustainable development should be a key goal for all Government Departments, and that there is progress to be made and work to do. We fully endorse that and accept that it is part of the job of the Environmental Audit Committee to monitor our progress. We shall, of course, respond to its report in due course.

Joan Ruddock: Further to her first answer, does my right hon. Friend agree that export credits from G7 countries have greatly added to polluting carbon technologies around the world? Will she speak to her colleagues about that issue and support Globe's campaign to ensure that 10 per cent. of export credit finance is devoted to the support of renewable energy?

Margaret Beckett: That is certainly an interesting campaign. My hon. Friend is right to say that, in putting sustainable development at the heart of what all Government Departments do, one of our goals must be to ensure that such issues are taken into account, whether in the award of export credits or in other fields. She will know that the Export Control Bill, which the Government have sought to put on the statute book, makes reference to the importance of sustainable development issues, which indicates that we are making progress in the right direction.

Egg Production

Graham Brady: If she will make a statement on levels of egg production in England in 2001.

Alun Michael: Some 22 million cases of eggs were produced in England and Wales during 2001.

Graham Brady: The Government have commissioned research on the potential welfare benefits of enriched cages for egg production and have also promised consultation before introducing regulations. Can the Minister give a guarantee that the consultation will not begin until the outcome of that research has been published; and can he give an assurance to an egg producer in my constituency who has invested £1 million during the past three years in providing four cages that can be enriched, that the regulations will not be gold-plated above the standards demanded by the EU directive when they are introduced?

Alun Michael: I do not think that I can guarantee that nothing will happen while the research is being undertaken. Improvement in a situation often continues in parallel with specific research. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the project to evaluate the effect of stock density and cage height on bird behaviour, welfare and performance, as well as to investigate innovative material suitable for dust bathing in enriched cages. This is an important issue, but I am not sure that it would be wise to separate the two.

David Heath: I urge the Minister not to forgo the opportunity of consultation with the industry before the research is completed. It is essential that we have a dialogue between the industry and the Government from day one because, as he knows, the industry faces serious competition from the outside world and substantial investment decisions during the next few years. Is it not the case that we need to maintain a dialogue between the industry and the Government, and at the same time have the absolute assurance that requirements will not be put on our domestic industry that are not applied elsewhere by competitor nations?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Regulations are being implemented to ensure not that they are gold-plated, but that they are consistent with those applied across Europe. I certainly understand the concern about threats to the industry's viability resulting from the imposition of higher animal welfare standards. The EU has made proposals to the World Trade Organisation to deal with that, and recognition of non-trade concerns within the WTO Doha declaration provides a sound basis on which to pursue it. The hon. Gentleman points to an important consideration.

Agricultural Tenancies

Simon Thomas: What proposals she has to review the law regarding agricultural tenancies.

Alun Michael: My noble Friend Lord Whitty is currently considering the report produced by the policy commission on the future of farming and food and the report produced for DEFRA by Plymouth university on the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. Both include a number of recommendations that could lead to changes in the law on agricultural tenancies.

Simon Thomas: Does the Minister share my concern that only 7 per cent. of land let under the 1995 Act is to genuine new applicants? In the review of the law, will he consider allowing tenants to have more scope for farm diversification than is currently allowed? Will he also take this opportunity to reject the proposal to increase stamp duty on long-term lets? Will he assure the House that any review of this law will focus on helping new entrants and sustainable family farms, particularly in Wales?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that many of those issues are devolved to the Welsh Assembly, so I shall respond with regard to England. I have met the Tenant Farmers Association, as has my colleague Lord Whitty, and I am particularly concerned about one of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises—the apparent difficulty for some tenants of entering into arrangements to be part of the agri-environmental schemes and to access other schemes under elements of the England rural development programme, which we very much want to address. The Plymouth report confirms that the latest legislation has delivered benefits for tenants and has facilitated restructuring within the industry, but we are carefully considering the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.

David Drew: The report by Seale-Hayne college of agriculture, Plymouth university, is very welcome, but does my right hon. Friend agree that a dialogue should be entered into with tenant farmers, in particular those on county farm estates, to see how those farmers who are most vulnerable to current problems can be helped? Will the Government take a lead and call a conference to bring together local authorities to talk about issues such as investment and the future of their tenants, to ensure that this important part of farming continues into the future?

Alun Michael: I shall draw my hon. Friend's specific suggestion to the attention of my ministerial colleague, Lord Whitty. Many discussions are going on at the moment. I have attended two of the regional conferences to consider the outcome of the Curry commission and the implementation, with stakeholders, of the recommendations in its report.
	On the Plymouth inquiry, if changes can be made to agricultural tenancy legislation to give landlords and tenants more flexibility to respond to the challenges faced by the industry, we will consider them carefully. We shall discuss the way forward with stakeholders in a variety of ways over the coming months.

Marine Environment

Lawrie Quinn: What measures she is taking to protect the marine environment for future generations.

Michael Meacher: The first marine stewardship report was published on 1 May. It sets out our strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of our marine environment. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Lawrie Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I think that he is aware of the important work that is being done locally in Scarborough and Whitby and along the coastline by Yorkshire Water, in its coast care project. Will he congratulate all the people involved, including those at Yorkshire Water, the contractors, and many members of the local community? My constituency has a long, historic and respectful relationship with the sea. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Johannesburg summit considers these important issues in a global context, projects such as Yorkshire Water's coast care should be viewed as the way forward in protecting the sea for future generations?

Michael Meacher: I am glad to offer the tribute that my hon. Friend requests. It is very important that the water companies recognise their coastal management responsibilities. We have instigated a review of coastal management, but it is for those companies to establish responsible care regimes such as Yorkshire Water's. We certainly intend to draw attention to the matter at the world summit, and we have already established internationally based partnerships between several of our water companies and Governments, to try to encourage in many developing countries the services and skills at which those companies excel.

Ann Winterton: The Minister may be aware of the irony of the situation whereby draconian measures will almost certainly be introduced by the Commission for the recovery of cod, hake and other species, yet the total allowable catch of sand eel has been set for at least double the amount that is currently being caught. Although I appreciate that the United Kingdom is impotent to do anything about that, other than using our 10 votes in the Council, does the Minister agree that if the sand eel catch—it is industrial trawling, which is extremely damaging to the marine environment—is not dramatically reduced, those draconian measures on cod and hake recovery will be totally meaningless?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Lady refers to draconian measures on cod and hake, but I would say that they are largely necessary. Eight stocks, including North sea cod, are fished in quantities that give rise to a severe risk of collapse. Last year, a recovery plan was implemented that closed 40,000 square miles of the North sea to preserve the spawning fields.
	I agree with the hon. Lady about the sand eel fishery. Denmark is the European Union country that engages most in industrial fishing. Our scientists have had extensive discussions with its scientists about its impact. I understand that last December the Agriculture Council agreed that limitations should be placed on industrial fishing, and that certainly applies to the sand eel fishery.

Austin Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the anxieties of the fishing industry about the threats to the marine environment posed by wind farms at sea, excessive depletion of aggregates and the discharge of pollutant water from oil and gas platforms? Will he ensure that the effects are fully researched and more tightly controlled? Will he also ensure that industrial fishing, which is a major threat to marine ecology, is not more tightly regulated but banned completely?

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend's last point is a matter for the EU and the appropriate Council under the common fisheries policy. A complete ban would have wider implications than he suggests, but everyone agrees that the size of nets and fishing methods have to be reviewed if they are not to be utterly counter-productive.
	I agree that coastal management is not only about preserving marine ecology but about trying to ensure a better balance between economic interests and conservation. Discharges from offshore oil platforms, the amount of produced water and other effects of industrial development around coasts can have dramatic consequences. The purpose of our review is better integration of environmental and economic interests, and to get all the players involved in forming policy.

Jonathan Sayeed: I would like to ask the Minister a question of which I gave him a modest amount of notice. He mentioned the review of the regulatory scheme and system that affect developments in coastal waters, which was announced in the recent marine stewardship report. What does he hope that it will achieve? What is its geographical scope? Will it cover all territorial waters out to 12 nautical miles or be more restricted? If the Government are committed to a review of regulations that affect development in coastal waters, what plans do they have for a similar review in waters further from the coast? If they have such plans, what are their likely time scale?

Michael Meacher: I am grateful for the notice, albeit after Question Time had started. Perhaps that marks a new concordat in the quality of exchange of information between those on the Front Benches.
	The hon. Gentleman asks a serious question, and I shall try to give him a serious answer. I hinted at it in my previous reply. The purpose of the review of the regulatory system that affects development in coastal waters is to reconcile the divergence of interest that has been apparent so often in the past between economic development and marine conservation. The Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) promoted is designed to do precisely that: designate marine sites of special interest and involve all the economic players—for example, those who want port development, offshore oil development and wind farms. They all need to be involved in developing policy. It is not one or the other; we can do far better than in the past in reconciling interests.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the extent of the review. It does not cover our territorial waters out only to 12 miles but to 200 miles. We propose to extend and apply the habitats directive to that distance. Britain is the first country to do that. [Interruption.] I can see that there are further ways of exchanging information; it is slightly novel to receive a further question when answering a question. I shall stick to what I have been asked formally.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about time scale. We will undertake the work in the autumn and we plan to complete it around the end of the year.

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. Friend knows that the marine stewardship report received a warm welcome from environmental organisations such as the wildlife trusts and WWF-UK. What is his view of the proposal from those organisations for a marine Act for the UK? Will he confirm that he and his colleagues will continue to press for radical reform of the common fisheries policy to ensure that it takes account of environmental considerations, which are so important to fulfilling the report's objectives?

Michael Meacher: I absolutely endorse my hon. Friend's latter point that the common fisheries policy needs a much stronger environmental dimension. Indeed, I would like to see a much closer relationship between the respective Environment and Fisheries Directorate-General in Brussels and the Councils.
	On my hon. Friend's point about a marine Act, the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill is already going through the House. There has been talk of an oceans Act—we shall certainly raise the issues of world governance and the better protection of our oceans at the world summit—but that possibility would depend on its contents. We have already instigated a more integrated system of coastal management, and we are working under the terms of the Oslo and Paris conventions to tackle pollution from hazardous and radioactive substances. We are also proposing to pilot a framework for nature conservation in the Irish sea.
	At the North sea conference in Bergen, which I attended in March, we proposed—and obtained agreement—to designate marine protection areas belonging to a network of well-managed sites. This is not to say that there are not still gaps in the mosaic, but before we embark on further legislation, the important requirement is to digest and implement effectively the series of measures that have recently been put in place.

Bovine TB

Julian Lewis: If she will make a statement on bovine TB.

Margaret Beckett: TB in cattle is one of the most difficult animal health problems we face, and the increase in its incidence is continuing to give considerable concern. The Government are seeking to proceed on the basis of sound science drawn from independent scientific and veterinary experts. Action is centred around a five-point strategy that involves protecting human health, developing a TB vaccine, carrying out research into bovine TB, testing cattle for TB and putting controls in place, and the badger field trial.

Julian Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Outbreaks of bovine TB more than doubled between 1995 and 2000. Does she think that that had anything to do with the decision in May 1997 to abandon the interim badger culling strategy?

Margaret Beckett: No, I do not. We are examining the risk factors now, but there is strong scientific support for carrying out the long-term research programme that is now under way, to settle once and for all whether there is a reservoir of disease in badgers specifically and in wildlife more generally, and whether there is cattle-to-cattle transmission—something that has not been looked at much in the past. We want to identify the problems once and for all so that we can tackle them.

Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, Cumbria was a bovine TB-free zone. Since we started to restock, however, there have been 20 reactor cases in the county, which is very worrying. I understand that the Ministry is carrying out major tests on the farms involved, but is being hampered by a shortage of at least 20 Ministry vets in the area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we eradicate bovine TB from Cumbria, and that, to do that, we need money to employ more vets? The cases are a consequence of the restocking following the foot and mouth outbreak, so the cost should surely be borne by the Treasury. Let us do this quickly, before the disease gets into the badger population.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am grateful to him for raising it. He is quite right to say that there is a different set of concerns following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, in which so many animals, sadly, had to be killed. I am grateful to him for giving me this chance to encourage farmers who are restocking to ensure that they buy from herds with known disease-free status and that they get their animals tested. As my hon. Friend said, there is a testing programme in place to try to detect any incidence of the disease. It had not been drawn to my attention that there might be a shortage of vets to carry out the tests in Cumbria, and I shall look into that.

David Curry: The number of cows affected by bovine TB is now a multiple of those affected by BSE. What will happen if the present rate of increase continues, so that the timetable set out in the Krebs research is overtaken by the pace of the disease? The Secretary of State mentioned finding out "once and for all" whether there is a link between badgers and bovine TB. What will happen if, as is entirely possible, we do not get such an outcome once and for all? In that unfortunate eventuality, at what stage would the Government start to draw up an alternative approach?

Margaret Beckett: Let me begin where the right hon. Gentleman ended. I did say that we were looking at other issues—not just at the badger trial, but at cattle-to-cattle transmission and so forth.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the greater incidence of TB. I think he must have been referring to the results of the recent testing. The programme was of course suspended during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Although we are paying close attention to what is happening, it is a little early to conclude that some major unforeseen development is in progress.
	I hope the House will accept that it was sensible for the Department to act as it did. Once the testing programme was able to resume, the Department naturally began with the areas where the highest incidence was anticipated.

Mark Todd: I agree with my right hon. Friend's answers. It is clearly important for us to continue with the Krebs trials, and do so with determination. It would be unwise to alter that strategy radically in mid-stream. I do, however, suggest two further steps. First, I think the compensation arrangements for those affected by TB should be reviewed. It has been demonstrated that although they seem generous to outsiders, they are insufficient to meet the costs of the outbreak. Secondly, I think the scale and frequency of the testing exercise itself should be reviewed. That, too, has been shown to be insufficient.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is of course unfortunate, as ever, that there is an economic as well as a disease consequence where TB is detected. I fear I cannot tell my hon. Friend that the Department will always be able to compensate for every incidence, but, as he says, we must do all that we can to maintain the variety of testing and identification programmes and learn as much as we can about what is a very damaging disease, not only in cattle but in humans.

Keith Simpson: The Secretary of State has rightly emphasised the seriousness of the issue. She is aware of what has been said by Members in all parts of the House, and her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State recently spoke of a serious and growing animal health problem.
	Farmers, animal welfare groups and many Members of Parliament fear that the Government—I emphasise "the Government"—may be failing to devote enough resources to dealing with a problem that continues to grow. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that her Department has enough resources to cope with that growing problem, and can she tell us what is the current backlog of tests for bovine TB, in terms of both the number of tests and the delay?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those figures, but I will send them to him in writing. As for the general issue, it is always possible to argue that more resources would be helpful. Let me repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who chairs the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: although we await the outcome of the recently resumed testing programme with considerable concern, it is not yet clear that we are experiencing a major unexpected incidence of the disease, as opposed to its emergence after a period during which studies did not continue. It is also not clear that we lack resources to deal with it. Obviously, however, we will keep the issues under review.

Beaches

Shona McIsaac: What progress her Department is making in making Britain's beaches cleaner.

Michael Meacher: We have made excellent progress in making Britain's beaches cleaner, with a record 95 per cent. of UK beaches complying with the European bathing water directive last year. Compliance in England is even better, with 98 per cent. of bathing waters complying in 2001. Further improvements to meet higher standards will include action to reduce diffuse pollution from agriculture.

Shona McIsaac: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Cleethorpes beach recently won a prestigious seaside award in recognition of its cleanliness? Will he extend his praise to all who worked so tirelessly to that end? I know that he visited Cleethorpes back in 1997; what plans has he to visit my wonderful beach again to see how effective his Department's investment has been in creating one of Britain's best beaches?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Michael Meacher: That is a very difficult question. Obviously, I sincerely congratulate Cleethorpes and the other towns that have achieved those extremely pleasing results, which are the consequence of a great deal of work by a wide range of partnerships. I will try to arrange a visit to Cleethorpes.
	The biggest cleanliness problem for the UK was Blackpool, and in a rather rash moment several years ago, I did say that when it passed on all counts, I would go up there, don my bathing trunks and plunge into the sea. I was rather alarmed to find out that, last year, that is exactly what happened, so this year I am looking forward to a bathe—at Blackpool, if not at Cleethorpes.
	The subject causes much mirth and merriment, but there is a serious point. By 2005, as a result of successive periodic reviews, we will have invested more than £5 billion in cleaning up rivers and beaches in this country. We should all be proud that the waters—seas, lakes and rivers—in this country are the cleanest since before the industrial revolution.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that Hunstanton—or Hun'ston, as the locals call it—also has an extremely clean beach and, incidentally, that it is a much nicer place than Cleethorpes? I hope that he will find time to visit Hunstanton and to pay tribute to the local staff, who played a very important role in the beach's winning several awards. Does he agree that this country's beaches would be cleaner still if we made greater use of renewable energy? Does he also agree that, although the offshore wind farm applications for the Wash are good news, they must be balanced against the interests of fisheries?

Michael Meacher: I am getting a little alarmed by the number of places that I am expected to visit in order to plunge into the sea, but the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to a very successful effort in his constituency. On balancing the interests—a point that relates to an earlier question—I strongly support offshore wind farms and the principle of offshore development of renewable energy, so long as such wind farms are carefully sited and careful consideration is given to balancing the interests involved. Such development has a major contribution to make.
	I think that the first application for a major offshore wind development was at Scroby bank—

Bob Blizzard: Sands.

Michael Meacher: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend; it is always helpful to have present hon. Members from all over the country who can offer corrections. The development at Scroby sands was the first, but there will certainly be many others. They contribute to the increase in renewable energy that we want to see, but I doubt whether they have much effect on the quality of beach waters. The big issue that we must now deal with is agricultural diffuse pollution, and that is what we are doing.

Compost Heaps

Jeremy Corbyn: If she will exempt domestic compost heaps from licensing requirements; and if she will make a statement.

Michael Meacher: The waste management licensing requirements under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 do not apply to householders dealing with their own household waste, including domestic compost heaps, on their own property.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that answer. I was going to suggest that he might care to make a ministerial visit to a compost heap, on top of all the coastal duties that he has to perform. It is obviously good news that hordes of local authority inspectors will not be wandering around looking at domestic compost heaps in an effort to define a compost heap, difficult though that would be. However, will my right hon. Friend encourage local authorities to give advice to householders on how to make compost heaps, because they are the best form of recycling of green waste? It is simple, easy to do and does not cost anything. Will he also see what his Department can do to encourage local authorities to provide composting bins free or at very low cost, so that food waste can be composted free of the danger of attracting vermin, which happens when people put food waste on a normal compost heap? If the Minister wishes to see a compost heap, I am sure that many hon. Members could assist him.

Michael Meacher: I can assure my hon. Friend that I make a weekly, if not more frequent, visit to my own composting heap. He is right to say that composting is important. The whole thrust of the Government's waste management strategy is to have a major increase in recycling, reuse and recovery, and that certainly includes composting. It is a way to gain better value from biodegradable waste. It improves soil quality and replaces non-renewable products such as peat. I am keen that local authorities should understand the potential and provide advice and support to people. I am also keen that a standard should be agreed between the Waste and Resources Action Programme, the Environment Agency and the Composting Association, because that would create a real market for organic waste-derived products.

Michael Jack: If the Minister would care to join me on Sunday on my allotment he would see the importance of compost to Fylde allotment holders as a key ingredient to successful growing. However, he would also see in vivid terms the difficulty that Fylde and many other local authorities have in providing sufficient resources to sustain and develop the allotments of which they are the stewards. Will he review the support that is given to local authorities to ensure that our allotments remain attractive and not the subject of land sell-offs?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Michael Meacher: I can feel widespread support for me to travel the country in my bathing trunks, carrying my gardening togs. I support the right hon. Gentleman's wish for allotments to be encouraged and, indeed, composting should take place on all well-kept allotments. If he is aware of particular problems, I would be glad to investigate them, because composting can play a major part in the Government's recycling and waste management strategy.

Tail Docking

Chris Bryant: When she will bring forward legislation to outlaw the unnecessary docking of animals' tails.

Alun Michael: We have just completed a consultation exercise on animal welfare law and know that there is considerable concern about the practice of tail docking of dogs. We are now considering whether any changes need to be made to the law.

Chris Bryant: I do not wish to hound the Minister on this point, but is not the practice of cutting dogs' tails off purely for cosmetic reasons unnecessary and barbaric? Is not it time that we acceded to the European convention on the protection of pet animals and gave dogs back their right to wag?

Alun Michael: I shall not refer to the dogged determination with which my hon. Friend pursues his point. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' code of professional conduct states that docking should not be carried out except for therapeutic reasons or to protect the dog from disease or injury. Given the prevalence of dogs with docked tails, it would appear that the royal college's guidance is not being followed uniformly by the profession, and that is one of the issues that we will consider as the outcome of the consultation is considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

Paddy Tipping: If she will make a statement on the introduction of nitrate vulnerable zones.

Michael Meacher: We are currently considering the responses made by individuals and organisations to our recent consultation paper, before taking a decision on how best to implement the nitrates directive in England. I hope to announce a decision shortly.

Paddy Tipping: I accept that the 1991 directive needs to be implemented more comprehensively and there are strong arguments for 100 per cent. coverage across England. Given that, however, will my right hon. Friend do what he can to help farmers and landowners by allowing them sufficient time to resolve the planning issues and to construct storage? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend maintain and extend the existing grants system?

Michael Meacher: We certainly will do what we can to give assistance, and to allow as much time as possible. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the directive went through in 1991. We are subject to infraction proceedings if we do not implement it in full, and non-compliance fines could run as high as £135,000 a day.
	Those constraints are unavoidable, and we have delayed implementation as long as possible over a period in which agriculture has been hit by foot and mouth, but we now risk fines and therefore have to act. However, the first closed period for spreading certain organic manures on vulnerable soils will not begin until the autumn of next year.
	My hon. Friend asked about assistance. To assist farmers—especially intensive livestock and dairy farmers—we have put in place the farm waste grants scheme, which covers up to 40 per cent. of costs, to a maximum of £85,000. That will go a long way towards assisting farmers in this difficult situation.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business of the House for next week is as follows:
	Monday 20 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Adoption and Children Bill.
	Tuesday 21 May—Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate on "Truancy and Discipline in Schools" followed by a debate on "Special Educational Needs". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 22 May—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill followed by a motion relating to the House of Commons Members' Fund.
	Thursday 23 May—Remaining stages of the State Pension Credits Bill [Lords].
	Friday 24 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
	The provisional business for the first day after Whitsun recess will be:
	Monday 10 June—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
	I shall announce the business for the remainder of that week next Thursday, depending on progress in Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for June will be:
	Thursday 13 June—Debate on the report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee on passenger rail franchising and the future of railway infrastructure.
	Thursday 20 June—Debate on equal opportunities in the Armed Forces.
	Thursday 27 June—Debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on the research assessment exercise.
	The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 12 June 2002, there will be a debate relating to the strategy for a future chemicals policy in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
	[Wednesday 12 June 2002:
	European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 6671/01; Strategy for a future chemicals policy. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 28-xii (2000–01)].

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. May I remind him that on 7 May, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a statement on Wembley stadium? In it, she said:
	"I fully recognise the public and parliamentary pressure for an end to the process and the start of the construction of a world-class stadium. I will therefore make a further statement to the House before the Whitsun recess."—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 22.]
	I am sure that the Leader of the House will recall that undertaking. Will he reassure the House, and give us his guarantee, that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will not come to the House on Friday 24 May with that statement? Although I and all other Conservative Members will be in our places here, I suspect that the Government believe that many of their friends and supporters may not be in theirs, as that is the day before the recess. Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely that the statement on Wembley stadium promised for before the Whitsun recess will be made in Government time, and before Friday 24 May?
	On 14 May we had a series of votes on resolutions concerning House matters. One motion stated:
	"That this House considers that there should be no differences in remuneration among Members who are not Ministers of the Crown beyond those already authorised."
	Some 197 Members voted against it and 175 voted in favour, so the motion was defeated. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the House has opined that it is proper that there should be differences in remuneration among Members who bear different responsibilities. I support that proposition, and as I said in interventions during that debate, I will support it going further. Although we voted that Select Committee Chairmen should be paid more, I urge the Leader of the House to consider ways of establishing whether there might not be other categories of Members bearing additional responsibilities—

David Winnick: The shadow Leader of the House.

Eric Forth: Modesty forbids me, Mr. Speaker, but if hon. Members were to urge upon me additional pay, I cannot give an undertaking that I would not take it.
	The serious point is this: given the view expressed by the House in the two motions of 14 May, will the Leader of the House give some thought as to whether we should look at this in a broader context to see whether it would be proper, reflecting the view of the House, to pay Members who bear additional responsibilities appropriately?
	In today's edition of The Independent, that highly respected commentator, Donald Macintyre—a man who is familiar with matters within the Labour party—made a shocking statement. I want to quote it at some length, because I want the Leader of the House to look into the matter and come back to the House following his investigations. Mr. Macintyre said that
	"on Tuesday, the Labour majority on the Treasury Select Committee caved in to government pressure and decided to delay consideration of the five economic tests of British euro entry. No doubt Gordon Brown feels he needs such an examination like a hole in the head. If he pressed the Labour majority, including the committee chairman, John McFall, not to undertake one, he was probably just doing his job."
	That is a reference to the Chancellor. The article continues:
	"What is clear, however, is that by acceding to this pressure—on what is after all the biggest issue of this parliament—the Labour members of the committee are very definitely not doing theirs."
	Given all the praise that was larded on to Select Committees the other day and the fact that we have said that Select Committee Chairmen should be paid more for discharging their responsibilities, this is a very serious allegation. I ask the Leader of the House to investigate the matter and report to the House on whether the Government put undue pressure on members of the Treasury Select Committee and whether that Committee caved in, to use Mr. Macintyre's words, to that pressure. It is a very serious allegation, and if we are to take our Select Committees seriously, we must be guaranteed that that is wrong and would never happen.

Robin Cook: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the business for next week. I shall try and respond to the points that came after that point of unity between us.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is well aware of the statement that she made to the House, and the matter is under active consideration. I note the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that there should be no statement on Friday 24 May; I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be here, of course, busily pursuing their duties. I have no doubt that many Opposition Members will be here too, and I look forward to a full report from my colleagues on the number of Opposition Members who attend.
	I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware that the matter concerns talks not only inside but outside Government and that others necessarily have to come to agreement before we can make a statement. However, I infer from what he said that he would find it more convenient if the statement were made on Tuesday 22 May, which is the Opposition Supply day.
	I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about other people in the House who might merit enhanced pay. I find it slightly mysterious that one of the few people outside the Government who receives enhanced pay is the Opposition pairing Whip. I certainly concur with the right hon. Gentleman that, given the fact that the Opposition pairing Whip receives a supplement, and that he must have at least as much to do as the Opposition pairing Whip, the entitlement to enhanced pay might also be due to my shadow—

Paul Tyler: Shadows.

Robin Cook: I seemed to be carrying my audience with me when I held out a helping hand to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but I do not detect the same sympathy from the House for going beyond that.
	The effect of the decision that we took on Tuesday is that the matter of pay for Chairs of Select Committees will be referred to the Review Body on Senior Salaries—the SSRB. Giving evidence or making a submission to the SSRB is of course open to any Member of the House—

David Winnick: Or the shadow Cabinet?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend really must not pinch all my punch lines. I was about to say that I look forward to the shadow Cabinet coming to a collective view on the matter so that we can know precisely where its members stand and so that the SSRB can take that into account. I warn them that it is often the practice of the SSRB to print the submissions that it receives and we look forward to reading that one.
	Mr. Don Macintyre is a journalist of distinction, with a well-crafted and well-pointed pen. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst quoted from a graphic and colourful interpretation of an event, but that event involved a majority on the Treasury Committee deciding that they did not wish to pursue a particular line of inquiry. I must point out that only two weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman stood at the Dispatch Box and praised the Select Committee for what it did. He cannot have it both ways—one week welcoming what the Committee says while in the next week deploring the views reached in that Committee by a majority of independent Members of the House.

Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House consider the mechanism whereby Parliament learns of important new Government developments? There are, of course, statements and written answers, but will he consider topical questions? As an illustration, I understand that yesterday a consultation document on combined heat and power was released on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website, but it appeared nowhere in the House. Will he consider that?
	Reverting to the report in The Independent by Don Macintyre, does the Leader of the House acknowledge that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have consistently supported the Modernisation Committee's proposals to give Select Committees greater independence, integrity and authority, but that, according to my reckoning, eight Ministers, 28 Parliamentary Private Secretaries, nine Government Whips and 12 ex-Government Whips in effect joined the Conservatives in the Lobby on Tuesday night?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the Prime Minister has to go on television to talk about the euro and Lord Heseltine has to use the pages of the Daily Express to talk to his Conservative colleagues to advance the case for it, but that our Select Committee, which reports to this Chamber, has no such opportunity to consider the advantages and disadvantages of entry? Is he aware that the Treasury Committee seems to have been nobbled by the Treasury itself? Indeed, is he aware that the Treasury seems to have access to the private discussions of the Select Committee?
	I pray in aid material collected by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) under the data protection legislation. When I put on my specs I shall read what the Treasury has been saying about my hon. Friend. Not only did the Treasury refer to his questions as "whiskery", which seems a curious description, but, back in January, it identified him as "the prime mover" in the Select Committee behind the request for the "Five Tests inquiry". The Treasury could have known that only if it was receiving leaks from the Committee. What does the Leader of the House have to say about that?

Robin Cook: I will consider the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the combined heat and power announcement. Websites are available in this building, however—although I should never accuse the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst of having such a thing anywhere in his office.

Eric Forth: No.

Robin Cook: I was confident of that. However, websites are widely available in the House, and sometimes putting something on a website is a sensible way of ensuring that it can be put before the House. Not everything that a Department does necessarily merits a statement, or even a planted question. It will always be a matter of judgment as to which is the most appropriate way of making an announcement. No one can claim that that was a secret or concealed statement.
	Don Macintyre will be intensely flattered by this morning's exchange in that he has been quoted so often. I would not wish in any way to detract from the praise given to him by all three of us who have taken part in those exchanges, all three of whom hope that we will be mentioned in a future column by Mr. Macintyre in suitable terms.
	I was glad that, on Tuesday night, we had a Labour majority for the reform that I proposed on the Committee of Nomination, and I regret the fact that the very large Conservative majority against it succeeded in tilting the balance the other way.

Paul Tyler: Both sorts of conservatives were involved.

Robin Cook: Indeed, but there was a much larger Conservative balance. An alliance between the Conservative party and old Labour would be formidable. It would, of course, be a matter for wider political comment; Mr. Donald Macintyre might wish to reflect on it in a future column.
	If there has been any impropriety in the Treasury Committee, the House has the remedy available through its own Select Committee system. That is not a matter for me in the first instance. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) complained about the Treasury's describing one of his colleagues as "whiskery", but I can only say that, after 40 years of sporting a beard, I think that "whiskery" is one of the highest forms of praise.

Dennis Skinner: I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend is an ardent supporter of proportional representation, but some of us are against it to the point that we do not like what is happening in Scotland, where power has been handed over to the Tories, and in Wales—

Keith Simpson: The Tories?

Dennis Skinner: Yes. The Tories got seats in the Scottish Parliament as a result of PR—they could not have got them any other way.
	The new-fangled Select Committee system would have handed over power to the political enemy—the Tories—who were going to sit on a joint committee to select Labour Members of Parliament. They are the same Tories who closed every pit in my constituency. Does not my right hon. Friend understand that some of us do not need official Whips to tell us what to do? As for that tinpot Liberal there, the hon. Gentleman should ensure that he gets his information right. Yes, there were people on the door arguing for old-fashioned socialists to stop the drift to giving power to the political enemy. I was one of them. Unlike the Tories who want money for their shadow Cabinet—that is why they voted for the money—I am an unofficial Whip who declares, "I don't want none; I'll do it for nowt."

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is in fine voice today. I have known him for almost 30 years in the House, and it never once crossed my mind that any improper influence could be brought to bear on how he voted on Tuesday, or any other night in his long, distinguished career in the House. I only remind him—sotto voce, because I see no point in replaying all the arguments of last Tuesday—that I was in the House on 17 July, when it responded to the lists put before it for the nominations to Select Committees, and I do not think that there was a preponderant feeling in the House that night that the existing system was a strong, old-fashioned socialist one. I regret that the House passed up the opportunity for reform when it had the chance on Tuesday.
	Of course my hon. Friend is right that I support PR. I make no bones about that. I understand entirely that I have some way still to climb on this side of the House to make progress with that—and an awful long way to climb on the other side of the House. As he mentioned the Scottish Parliament, I should like him to reflect on how the PR system and the fact that the Scottish Parliament represents the whole of Scottish public opinion has helped to build a consensus, which will ensure that no one will ever dare try to abolish the Scottish Parliament.

Teddy Taylor: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate early next week on today's alarming news that the Bank of England's reserves are more than $450 million—£300 million, or £26 for every family in Britain—lower than they otherwise would be because of the Chancellor's decision to instruct the Bank to sell its gold and put 40 per cent. of the money into euros? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is a serious issue and that, if we do not have a debate, it will give the impression that the Government want to hold debates on things that are going well, but are not prepared to face up to the issues when a horrible mistake that costs the taxpayer a fortune is made?

Robin Cook: I can say only that the hon. Gentleman has again lived up to his reputation by raising an issue that is three years old. Of course, the sale of the gold had nothing to do with the overall level of the reserve and everything to do with the rebalancing between liquidity and gold. As he raises the issue, let me say that I am delighted, because I feel much more secure and sleep much better in my bed in the full knowledge that a much lower debt hangs over the Bank of England and the Government. Indeed, he gives me the opportunity to remind the House that the Government that he supported, and, from time to time, aspired to be a member of—indeed, that he supported that Government from time to time is also probably a fair rider—doubled the national debt. This Government have halved the national debt. If he is looking for prudence, it lies in our record and not his.

Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the enlargement of the European Union? He will know that Commissioner Verheugen has published a report indicating that the applicant countries may be in the EU by 2004. Clearly, although hon. Members want to debate the euro and the five economic tests, other European issues can be discussed. Enlargement is an important issue.

Robin Cook: I fully agree with my hon. Friend on his observation about the importance of the enlargement of the European Union. It depresses me that there is not more press, media and public interest in what is an enormous historic and strategic change in the European Union. The British Government have sought to be a champion of enlargement, which will be reinforced next week when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meets the new Prime Minister of Hungary. We will continue to do everything that we can to make sure that we achieve the targets, for which we argued and secured agreement, that candidates who are ready should be admitted in time for the next European parliamentary elections in 2005. I assure my hon. Friend that everything possible is being done to achieve that, and we would welcome an opportunity, should it arise, of reporting on that to the House.

George Osborne: The Leader of the House's legendary powers of persuasion persuaded me to vote with him on Tuesday in the Division Lobby.

Eric Forth: So my hon. Friend was one of them?

George Osborne: Indeed I was. I ignored the advice of the shadow Leader of the House. Has the Leader of the House had the chance to reflect in the last couple of days on why those legendary powers of persuasion failed to persuade a single member of the Cabinet, apart from the Chief Whip, to join him in the Division Lobby?

Robin Cook: I was about to thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, but I shall put that on hold in the light of his final line. As to the Cabinet, I must admit that, when I was Foreign Secretary, I was rarely present in the House on the occasion of an open vote. I regret that, as one of the things that I enjoy enormously about my current job is the opportunity to be present in the House for all the time that I want. We must be realistic: Cabinet Ministers have a lot of other things to do. Although I was pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's support, I was, if anything, even more pleased to have the support of the majority of the Labour Members who voted that night.

Ann Clwyd: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of early-day motion 826, which calls for a committee of Members of Parliament to be set up to provide prior scrutiny of certain contentious arms export licences.
	[That this House believes that specified defence export licence applications should be subject to prior scrutiny by a committee comprising honourable Members of Parliament.]
	The subject of arms licences has caused considerable dissent at various times in the House. Four Select Committees of the House decided unanimously to support a committee providing prior scrutiny, and both the United States and Sweden have such a committee. Next week, in the other place, there is an opportunity on Third Reading to support an amendment calling for prior scrutiny. The early-day motion has been signed by 304 Members of the House, and my right hon. Friend will agree that that is a strong expression of opinion supporting the setting up of such a committee.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have spent much time debating this matter with her and other members of the Quadripartite Committee. I welcome the interest that has been shown by the Quadripartite Committee in arms exports decisions, and I am modestly pleased that there was only one occasion when there was a substantive difference of opinion between the Quadripartite Committee and the Government on the decision taken by Government.
	Prior scrutiny would raise many separate constitutional questions, because the traditional way in which the Government are accountable to this place and to its Committees is to take a decision and to be held to account for it. Involving the House in the decision-making process, particularly in the case of individual decisions and applications by commercial companies, would be a new venture. However, I am proud of the fact that this Government have provided both the Quadripartite Committee and everyone in the House with more opportunity to hold us to account for decisions on arms exports by providing the most transparent, comprehensive and detailed reports on our decisions on such exports of any European country.

Simon Thomas: Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the results of the Dutch elections yesterday? It now looks likely that the third Government in Europe with an extreme right-wing element will be set up, joining the crypto-fascists in Austria and Italy. While I accept that our Government have to have a working relationship with Governments of that political colour, surely it should not be a special relationship such as that advocated by the Prime Minister with Italy. May we have an opportunity to debate in Government time their relationship with emerging right-wing Governments in Europe, so that we can examine how we can work with those Governments and the people of the countries concerned to persuade the European political consciousness to reject that right-wing ideology?

Robin Cook: My concern about the elections in the Netherlands yesterday is, if anything, even greater than the hon. Gentleman's, since I have a number of good friends and political colleagues who lost their seats, which I deeply regret.

Eric Forth: Excellent.

Robin Cook: While I do not expect any sympathy—indeed, I anticipated that reaction—I do not anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman would have supported the election of List Pim Fortuyn, which is what contributed so much to that defeat.
	I hear what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is saying. He properly recognises that we will have to have a working relationship with whatever Governments are elected by other European Union member states, but that does not mean to say that we share any of the values or policy objectives of those who were elected from the extreme right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister never said anything about the special relationship with Italy. If I remember rightly, that language was used by the Prime Minister of Italy, not the Prime Minister of Britain. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will have correct relations with the Netherlands, but he is right that we will want to work with our colleagues throughout Europe to ensure that the poisonous doctrine of the far right is defeated.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House has worked seriously to improve and increase the powers of the House of Commons and to modernise them. Is it not a matter of considerable regret, however, that on Tuesday when the House was presented with the opportunity of a truly free vote on giving power back to Back-Bench Members to decide the membership of Select Committees, the Whips Office—the Government Whips Office—made a concerted effort to encourage Members of Parliament into the Aye Lobby. Will he consider that interesting definition of the words "free vote"? We seem to have lost an interpretation of the words that could be clearly understood.

Robin Cook: Of course, I regret the fact that the motion that I put before the House did not command a majority. If I may put in a good word for the Whips, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) joined me in the Lobby on Tuesday. That confirms my judgment that he is a man of discretion, wisdom and vision—if only I had had more such Members in the House on Tuesday night I would have been very content. The House has spoken and I have taken careful note of what was said by those who voted against. The next time that they are unhappy about the membership of a Select Committee, I shall remind them of what they said on Tuesday.

George Young: Further to that reply, does the Leader of the House have any plans to revisit the business that the House debated on Tuesday? Does he agree that, whereas last July the House took the view that the Whips had too much patronage, somewhat perversely on Tuesday night the House voted to give them even more? Will he consider with the Modernisation Committee the specific proposition that the House rejected on Tuesday to see whether it might be amended to reflect the concern of the House? Will he then bring a fresh proposition back to the House, so that we can move away from the present position, which is unsatisfactory? [Interruption.]

Robin Cook: I should warn the right hon. Gentleman that he is being heckled vigorously by those on his Front Bench. I thought I should put that on the record in case he failed to observe it.
	The proposition that I moved on Tuesday was not plucked out of thin air over a few hours; it was the product of several weeks of painful negotiation and compromise with the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means, and discussion with others in the House. During the debate, I offered to rebalance it further to take account of the concerns of newer Members. It was therefore the product of pretty intensive effort. I have to be honest: I do not think it will be possible to come up with a proposal that will command wider acceptance. The House was given an opportunity on Tuesday to vote for a different system or to stick with the present one; it voted to stick with the present system. It will be some time before I feel able to revisit it and will only do so if I am given more encouragement than I am getting from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Kevin Hughes: Two days ago the Government announced a consultation on energy policy. In an accompanying press release, the Prime Minister said:
	"I hope that this report will launch a thorough debate."
	The Minister for Industry and Energy said:
	"I am determined to make the consultation process as open and inclusive as possible."
	I have asked the Leader of the House this before, and I ask him again: will he organise a full day's debate on energy policy, either in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall, so that Members can participate fully in the consultation process?

Robin Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says and am well aware of the wide interest in the House in the future of energy policy, which has been raised a number of times in business questions. At present, as is common at this phase in the parliamentary Session, we have a great deal of legislative business to take on the Floor of the House in order to maintain the legislative programme. I am aware of the interest in debating energy policy, and I take note of my hon. Friend's comments.

Bob Russell: In the spirit of joined-up government, will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate listed buildings, in particular the fact that one Department granted listed building consent as recently as March to buildings at Bishopsgate goods yard, while another Department is planning in the next week or two to sanction sending in the bulldozers? Not only will we lose some of our major national heritage, but many jobs will be lost. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the relevant Minister to find time to come to the House and explain why joined-up government is not working in respect of our listed buildings?

Robin Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having found a subject on which the entire resources of Whitehall had not thought to offer a brief in advance. In the circumstances, I shall refer his comments to the two relevant Departments and invite them to respond.

Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Government's plans to have a single equality commission that will encompass the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equality Opportunities Commission, and which will also consider age, sexual orientation and religion? The Government's plans are probably the most practical way to proceed, but there is understandable concern among the different groups involved that their particular interests will be lost. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate that important proposal?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that we can be proud of the Government's record post-1997 and, indeed, of the record of previous Labour Governments, of taking through all the legislation on the statute book which opposes race discrimination and promotes equality of opportunity for women. We want to build on that fine record of achievement in opposing inequality and discrimination.
	My hon. Friend will be aware that the idea of a merger has been floated. At the moment, it is no more than that. It will require considerable debate and I have not the slightest doubt that views will be expressed by people on both sides of the argument, including those who are worried about maintaining the focus of those bodies.

Robert Walter: I should like to follow up on that subject. The Leader of the House will be aware that my Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill is listed for Second Reading on Friday 21 June—alas, it is No. 6 and will not be reached. However, an identical Bill was introduced in the Lords on 13 March, when it had its Second Reading. It has completed its Committee stage and will complete Report and Third Reading next week. It received the support of all those on the Front Benches in that House and there are indications of support from Cabinet Office Ministers here. Can the Leader of the House give an idea of how much time he thinks that Bill will require to be passed in this House, and when he is likely to make an announcement on that?

Robin Cook: I am sympathetic to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. As he knows, some of my colleagues in government have already expressed their sympathy with the purposes of the measure.
	As Leader of the House, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman must be realistic about the prospects of progress for a Bill that is slated as No. 6 on the last day for private Members' business in this Session. I wish him much luck; I will be happy if he succeeds. However, it is not for me to intervene to provide the opportunity for that to happen. If I were to do so, those with an interest would wish Bills Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 19 to feature in next week's business statement.

John Cryer: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1206?
	[That this House commemorates Workers' Memorial Day on 28th April and recognises its value in helping trade unions and work place safety and health campaigners in over l00 countries to draw attention to the one million three hundred thousand people who die annually due to poor working conditions often forgotten and publicly unremembered; and welcomes this year's UK theme of improving public health through stronger safety and health measures, access to effective occupational health services and empowering safety representatives to do an even better job in the work place.]
	The motion stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). It draws attention to the fact that 1.3 million people die because of poor health and safety conditions every year throughout the world.
	The British building industry has always been notoriously dangerous. At present, two construction workers die each week because of poor health and safety conditions. Some construction workers who have suffered under these conditions, and who will suffer in future, live in my constituency, which provides many construction workers for east London and the rest of the south-east. Will it be possible to have a debate, perhaps in Government time, on health and safety conditions on building sites?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises an important and serious issue. I share his view that the legal process, the political process and Parliament should pay more attention to and put more effort into considering serious loss of life at work, including on building sites. It is important that we all back the Health and Safety Executive in its measures to ensure that we provide, as best we can, the safest possible working environment for those who undertake tasks that often turn out to be more dangerous than was anticipated when they were designed. I wish my hon. Friend every success with his campaign. I am sure that he will find other opportunities in Parliament to raise it.

Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Foreign Office Minister next week to correct the record of the House at column 332 on 9 December 1998?
	The House, including the right hon. Gentleman, will recall the murder of four hostages—British Telecom workers—in Chechnya in 1998. One of those people, Mr. Rudolph Petschi, was one of my constituents, and on behalf of his widow I pursued information through debates and questions. After two years I gave up because I felt that the responses I received were inadequate. I referred the case to the parliamentary ombudsman, who has now reported.
	As a result of that investigation, I have received a letter telling me that Foreign Office practice in London and in our embassies will be changed in respect of how communications are dealt with at weekends. In addition, on 21 March I received a letter of apology from the permanent secretary, Mr. Michael Jay. He apologised to Mrs. Petschi and me for the confusion in the way Ministers answered my questions. I have sent a copy of the letter to you, Mr. Speaker.
	I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 22 April but have received no response to that letter, let alone an apology. The need for an apology is twofold. First, I obviously accept the permanent secretary's apology, but I do not think that it is correct for Ministers to allow civil servants to apologise on their behalf for what happens in the Chamber. In addition, the very nature—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Angela Browning: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Lady is raising a sensitive matter, but I must stop her. This is business questions. I call the Leader of the House to reply.

Robin Cook: I shall read the ombudsman's report and the correspondence to which the hon. Lady has referred. She will be well aware of my interest in it at the time. I have not seen the papers, and therefore would not wish to give the House an off-the-cuff response. The matter deserves to be considered fully and in detail. Having said that, I remind the hon. Lady and the House that, from my recollection of events, even if procedure that weekend had been different, there is no evidence that it would have had the slightest bearing on the tragic outcome for those four people.

Jimmy Wray: Given that we are a Government of strong family values, why the haste in introducing the Adoption and Children Bill? We have not had any consultation with any Churches or any of the children's committees. What kind of psychological effect will the Bill have? Will it erode the civil liberties of children who have been adopted by homosexual partners? Is it right for a Labour Government to introduce such a Bill? Because there has been very little consultation, as I have said, will the Leader of the House postpone it?

Robin Cook: I will not do that. The Adoption and Children Bill, which we shall consider today and next week, is the only Bill this Session that we have dealt with in Special Standing Committee, which enabled everybody with an interest to give evidence to Committee members. Moreover, the proposal before the House to provide for unmarried couples to adopt children is supported, I believe, by every children's charity. If we are serious about providing a home for those children and making sure that we tap those who are willing to work with them and the charities to provide a secure environment in which they can be brought up, we have to move with the times and recognise that a growing number of couples out there are not married, but are living together in a stable, albeit unmarried, relationship. It may not be right for the House to tell them that, for that reason, they cannot adopt a child and at the same time tell the children that we cannot find them a home because we will not work with those people.

Charles Hendry: The Leader of the House, with his characteristic respect for Parliament, won plaudits from both sides of the House when he recently apologised to the House for giving incorrect information, albeit inadvertently. We read in today's papers that the Home Secretary won respect from police officers when he apologised yesterday for the way in which he has treated them in recent months; we look forward to his making a similar apology in the House shortly. Now that we know that the Transport Secretary is on his way out, will the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary take him to one side, preferably in a remote, darkened and sound-proof room, and explain that the only way for him to gain respect in the House is to follow their lead and apologise for his errors and the way in which he has treated the House?

Robin Cook: I think that I went seven minutes on that question with John Humphrys last Friday, which was as testing as anything that I have encountered during business questions. There is no dispute whatsoever about the fact that at that meeting in February Martin Sixsmith and the permanent secretary discussed resignation; there is a dispute between the permanent secretary and Martin Sixsmith about how far they got in settling the question of resignation. It is the case that I came to the House and apologised; I did so because I had been given misleading information, and the person who provided that information was Martin Sixsmith.

Jon Owen Jones: Although recently there has been a welcome trend for Ministers to admit mistakes, it is nevertheless unusual for the Prime Minister to admit that his policy does not work, as he did this week with drugs policy. Will the Leader of the House allow us to have an early debate before the summer recess on drugs policy and what it should consist of, as the Prime Minister has clearly admitted that the policy we have been employing is not working?

Robin Cook: If I may say so, no one in the Government is more vigilant in guarding against complacency than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. When we find that a policy is not producing the results that any of us would wish, it is right to look at it again and consider alternative ways of developing it. That is the responsible way to do it, but I must tell my hon. Friend and the House that anyone who pretends that there is an easy, simple and guaranteed answer on drugs has not considered the problem and the reality with which we deal in many of our inner-city communities.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Afghanistan

Geoff Hoon: I should like to bring the House up to date on recent developments in Afghanistan.
	On Monday, taskforce Jacana—the force based around 45 Commando Group, Royal Marines—completed the first major operation in Afghanistan, Operation Snipe, but before I report on what Operation Snipe has achieved, I should say a few words about the medical situation at Bagram air base.
	Over the past three days, 18 military personnel serving with 34 field hospital at Bagram air base have been taken ill with an unidentified feverish illness. The precise nature of the illness is not yet known and medical tests are being urgently conducted to isolate the cause. The symptoms are consistent with enteric febrile illness and the illness appears to be contagious.
	Two people are very seriously ill, but fortunately their conditions have stabilised overnight. One has been returned to the United Kingdom for treatment and the other has been evacuated to a United States hospital in Germany. One other person remains seriously ill. He is being cared for by the remaining medical staff at Bagram. This patient and five others are scheduled for aeromedical evacuation to the UK today for further treatment and convalescence. Six other patients are under close medical supervision at 34 field hospital. Four patients have already been discharged.
	In response to the outbreak, a number of actions have been taken. As a precaution, the field hospital has been closed to all but similarly infected patients, and strict barrier nursing protocols have been implemented. The occupants of the tent in which the disease first appeared have been placed under quarantine. Fresh rations are no longer being supplied; only operational ration packs are being used. An environmental health officer and his team have been deployed to Bagram, and an infection control nurse has been deployed from the United Kingdom. A consultant in infectious diseases is to be deployed as soon as possible.
	Advice has been sought from the consultant adviser in communicable disease control, who in turn has consulted other national experts. An epidemiological study has commenced to investigate the origins of the infection and the pattern of its spread. A consultant physician, an anaesthetist and two intensive care unit nurses have been deployed to reinforce 34 field hospital. In the interim, the German hospital based in Kabul will provide hospital cover for British troops based in Afghanistan.
	The situation is clearly very serious. We are, however, encouraged that there have been no new cases over the past 22 hours. We will keep the House informed of further significant developments, as appropriate. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in wishing all those who have been taken ill a full and rapid recovery.
	I should also like to take this opportunity to bring the House up to date on the international security assistance force in Kabul. ISAF has been doing excellent work under British leadership. On 29 April I told the House of Turkey's decision to take over as lead nation. On 7 May, Turkish Foreign Minister Cem wrote to the United Nations Secretary-General to confirm this. We are now discussing the final details of the leadership transfer and are working towards achieving that by the end of June.
	On 9 and 10 May, Turkish and UK authorities co-hosted an ISAF force generation conference in Ankara, focusing on the next phase of the deployment. Twenty-six nations made offers covering almost all the force requirements. These nations are now making their final assessments of what capabilities they might be able to contribute. That includes the United Kingdom. It is too soon to say what will be the likely size of our future contribution to ISAF, but it will be a considerably smaller contribution than the number of UK personnel who are now deployed with that force. I am confident that, under Turkish leadership, ISAF will remain the well-balanced and capable force that it is today. I congratulate Turkey on its decision.
	I turn now to Operation Snipe. The House should recall the context of the overall objectives of our action in Afghanistan, which we set out in detail when military action began. These are to bring Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders to justice; to prevent Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network from posing a continuing terrorist threat; to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism; and to effect a sufficient change in the leadership to ensure that Afghanistan's links to international terrorism are broken.
	Those objectives still hold and have been substantially achieved. The Taliban have been removed from power and replaced by the Interim Administration under Hamid Karzai. He is moving Afghanistan along the road towards the Loya Jirga, which will shape the Government of Afghanistan for the next stage of their constitutional development.
	We have gone a long way towards ensuring that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism, and we have made progress towards preventing al-Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat elsewhere, but these objectives have not yet been fully secured. Previous offensive operations, including the US-led Operation Anaconda, did real damage to al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, which have been effectively destroyed as dominant organised forces in Afghanistan.
	But al-Qaeda and the Taliban have not completely disappeared. The terrorists have not been finally defeated. Elements of these organisations continue to pose a threat inside Afghanistan. The enemy still exists. We need to keep up the pressure and prevent them from re-establishing themselves in Afghanistan. We have good evidence that small groups of terrorist forces continue to prepare for and conduct operations and to attack opportunity targets. In recent weeks there have been a number of—fortunately ineffectual—attacks against coalition bases throughout Afghanistan. Left to regroup, these terrorists would easily pose a direct threat—even, ultimately, to the people of the United Kingdom.
	That is why ISAF has been deployed to Kabul, to help the Interim Administration to maintain security in these difficult early days. That is why, with allies, we continue to work with the Interim Administration on wider security sector reform, to ensure that the Afghan people are able to take on the responsibility for the long-term security of their country.
	It is also why there is a continuing need to prosecute offensive operations against al-Qaeda. It is why, in March, we deployed the 1,700 strong group formed around 45 Commando, Royal Marines, to Afghanistan to play its part, with other coalition forces, in countering the threat from al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants. And that is why these Royal Marines carried out Operation Ptarmigan, from 13 to 18 April, and Operation Snipe, from 1 to 13 May.
	The decision to deploy the Royal Marines on Operation Snipe was taken on the basis of clear military advice. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has set out, its strategic objective was to ensure that al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants were not able to regroup and launch new offensives against the Interim Administration or coalition forces. This is even more important as the country moves towards the Loya Jirga.
	Operation Snipe's objectives were to search the area of operations, 220 sq km of land, for terrorists and terrorist infrastructure—the caves and bunker complexes, the arms caches, and supply dumps—and, when found, to destroy them. Had the Royal Marines encountered any terrorist groups, they would have dealt with them. The area of operations for Operation Snipe was chosen carefully as part of a wider coalition plan to deny space in Afghanistan to the terrorists. The area was chosen specifically because we knew it was where terrorist forces had operated, and where they were still capable of operating. It was chosen because it was somewhere that coalition forces had not previously operated.
	This was a major operation, the largest offensive ground operation UK forces have undertaken since the Gulf conflict. In all, around a thousand personnel were involved—mostly drawn from 45 Commando, Royal Marines, ably supported by 3 Commando Brigade's brigade reconnaissance force; the 105 mm guns of 7 Battery, 29 Commando Regiment; 59 Independent Commando Squadron, Royal Engineers; the Commando Logistics Regiment; and Chinook helicopters from 27 Squadron.
	This was a powerful, balanced, and capable force operating in close co-operation with other coalition forces. They worked closely with the Afghans, who provided guides, and also with American forces. They came under the local command and control of the United States 10 Mountain Division. US forces also provided helicopter support and, had it been required, were ready to provide close air support, a divisional reserve in the event of serious opposition, and medical support in the event of casualties.
	The Royal Marines who deployed on Operation Snipe displayed the skill and professionalism that we have come to expect. Once again, they proved just how fortunate we are to possess forces of such high quality. They scoured terrain as rugged as any in the world, at extremely high altitudes—between 8,000 and 13,000 ft above sea level for two weeks.
	The success of Operation Snipe should not be measured by the number of dead al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. No terrorists were killed or detained by the Royal Marines. There were no close contacts with the enemy, but to say this means that somehow the operation was a failure or a waste of time, as some have suggested, is quite wrong.
	One obvious and tangible proof of the operation's success was the destruction of a massive arms cache. The Royal Marines found 2,300 rocket-propelled grenades, 1,200 mortar rounds of varying calibre, 200 land mines, and 30,000 other types of munitions ranging from heavy machine gun bullets to 155 mm artillery shells, spread over 10 caves, bunkers and other sites. Other than a small quantity of bullets and mortar rounds that were transferred to the new Afghan national army, this has all been destroyed. That means that Afghanistan is a safer place, as a direct result of Operation Snipe. The cache belonged to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, not to a local warlord. The types of munitions found, the fact that the area is one where we know that terrorists have operated in the past, and the location of the weapons and munitions at a point where the territories of three rival warlords intersect all indicate that they belonged to terrorists.
	But it was not just the discovery of those weapons that made Operation Snipe a success. Two hundred and twenty sq km of land that provided a safe haven for terrorists has been checked and cleared for the first time in this campaign. Also, taskforce Jacana gained valuable intelligence, which is still being assessed. Moreover, al-Qaeda and Taliban members have been prevented from carrying out offensive operations from the areas covered by Operations Ptarmigan and Snipe. That is particularly important at a time when the country is moving towards the Loya Jirga. I ask the House to bear it in mind that the direct distance from Khost to Kabul is just under 100 miles. Operation Snipe therefore achieved its objectives.
	There are those who may have been disappointed that there were no contacts with the enemy. Certainly, some Royal Marines were frustrated by that, but that does not detract from what they have achieved. Clearing country like this is hard, slow, difficult and dangerous work. It is not glamorous, nor is it spectacular, but it played, and continues to play, an important part in denying a large area of Afghanistan to the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
	On 16 October last year, when some were questioning the shape of the military campaign, I explained to the House that what was in prospect in Afghanistan was not a classical military campaign—because we were not, and are not, facing a standing army—so the phasing, tempo, and scale of operations differed from what would be used against a conventional opponent. That remains the case. One of the lessons of unconventional campaigns of the past is that ultimate success depends on action on many fronts—political, social and economic, as well as military—and cannot be measured in days. At the military level, comparable campaigns have been marked not by pitched battles, but by prolonged periods of patient, painstaking patrolling and information gathering. At times, direct offensive action may be required—Operation Anaconda was an example of such action—but that tends to be the exception, rather than the norm.
	Operation Snipe must be seen in the context of a developing pattern of operations. Those operations will be intelligence-led and will vary in scale and intensity. Brigadier Lane, the commander of taskforce Jacana, was right when he said that offensive operations like Operation Snipe were drawing to an end. Taskforce Jacana is now in a period of recovery and preparation for further operations. The House would not expect me to set out where or when those operations will take place. They may look rather different from Operation Snipe—sometimes there may be no visible activity—but they will all be focused on the destruction of the terrorist infrastructure and, where terrorist groups are encountered, of the terrorists themselves. By conducting such operations, we will seek to ensure that al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants cannot regroup in a way that allows them to launch operations to undermine the stability of Afghanistan or to disrupt the emergency Loya Jirga—or, indeed, to threaten lives elsewhere.
	To ensure that we are able to carry out continuing operations, we are announcing today the compulsory call-out of medical reserves. Five anaesthetists and two surgeons will be called out in mid-June for deployment in early July, and a further four surgeons will be called out in mid-July for deployment in early August. The period of call-out will be three months—they will then be replaced by others. Reservists play an increasingly important part in current operations. Those personnel will provide essential medical support to operations.
	Ultimately, the future of Afghanistan is a matter for the Afghan people. It is their right, and ultimately their responsibility, to govern themselves in a society free of oppression or the malign influence of terrorists. We shall continue to support the Afghan people as they begin the long process of restoring the stability and prosperity of their country.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and I am grateful for sight of it in advance.
	I shall not dwell at length on the outbreak of illness among personnel attached to 34 field hospital, but I entirely echo the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State and his concern for those infected and for their families. We wish them a speedy recovery, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will do everything that can be done to assist them. There will inevitably be questions to answer about the cause of the outbreak. For example, is there any connection between this outbreak and the soldier who contracted something similar two weeks ago? Could a local person who was being treated in our hospital have brought in the infection?
	Although the Army takes pride in lightly equipped deployments, as they extend from weeks to months are we cutting corners and adding to health risks by refusing to replace trench latrines and basic washing facilities with portakabins containing proper showers and flushing toilets? The contrast between our operations in Kabul and those of other nations brought that matter to light when I was there a month ago.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that an inquiry will be undertaken into the outbreak, and that it should not rule out any possible source of the infection? I look forward to its conclusions.
	Is not the compulsory call-out of Territorial Army medical staff a good reminder of the valuable role that the TA plays in our armed forces?
	The statement has much greater import, too; I suspect that the Secretary of State felt the need to make it so as to respond to the chorus of media disenchantment with recent operations in Afghanistan. Many commentators share the palpable frustration of the Royal Marines, to which the Secretary of State referred, because they did not get the engagements with the enemy that we had been led to expect. However, I agree with the Secretary of State and the Government that that does not mean that Operations Ptarmigan and Snipe have been a waste of time.
	In the areas at the heart of al-Qaeda's state within the state, those operations have denied the ground to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Is not al-Qaeda dispersed and disrupted a much better prospect than al-Qaeda massing to destabilise the new Government in Kabul? Is that not a success? The terrorists ran away from the British Royal Marines, whereas previously they felt able to stand and fight. Is that not a testament to the fearsome reputation for bravery and professionalism of our Royal Marines? We should congratulate all those in taskforce Jacana on a job well done.
	What now? Where does the war on terrorism go from here? The Secretary of State referred to the continuing need to prosecute offensive operations. He said that we were not considering a classical military campaign and stressed the need for better intelligence. He mentioned the varying scale and intensity of operations, and said that there was sometimes no visible activity. He described the focus on terrorist infrastructure and the disruption of the terrorists' ability to operate. Is that not a description of what is becoming a classic counter-insurgency war? Is not better intelligence the key to successful operations?
	What is the Secretary of State's assessment of the strength, capabilities and current activities of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and especially in Pakistan and elsewhere? It is obvious that its members are not simply hiding in Afghanistan; they have fled. What is his latest assessment of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden? As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, his capture was the Government's stated objective at the outset. Where does all that leave our future commitment?
	What relationship will the United Kingdom and ISAF have with the new permanent American headquarters, which is being set up with 500 staff at Bagram? That signals a long-term United States commitment to Operation Enduring Freedom. What is our commitment? What is its duration? What progress is being made on training an indigenous Afghan army? It has been said that Afghanistan needs an army of 60,000.
	The Secretary of State referred to action on many fronts—political, social and economic. What further military and other activities will the UK undertake to continue what the Government have started—the stabilisation of the Government of Afghanistan? I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the frustration that the British military expressed when I was in Kabul last month. They said that it was often hard and complicated to use British aid money to fulfil projects such as getting the electricity back on or repairing the water supplies. Those are projects for the population among whom our soldiers have to live and work. We promised so much that any failure to deliver may make them a focus for frustration and ultimately a target for public disappointment and protests.
	We welcome the fact that Turkey will take over the leadership of ISAF, but when will the Government make a clear statement about the way in which a military civil aid programme will be delivered? All we hear is that the Secretary of State for International Development is reluctant to co-operate with projects led by the military—and that the problem is not that she cannot help, but that she will not help.
	Is the Secretary of State aware that many of our soldiers feel a bit used because of the involvement in what might be called "eye-catching initiatives", while small sums are denied for less glamorous projects that could make a big practical difference to the people whom the British armed forces are there to help? Will he explain to the House how this frustration can be resolved?
	The lessons of previous successful counter-insurgency operations in Kenya, Malaya, Borneo and Oman teach us the need to win over the hearts and minds of the indigenous population. If that is the road that the Government are choosing to go down, that is the task that we must put at the top of the agenda.

Geoff Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful and considered comments on the medical outbreak at Bagram. I know that his good wishes will be well received by the people affected and by their families. I assure him that, as I said in my statement, a determined effort will be made to identify the cause of the outbreak. Obviously, we need to understand its cause to ensure that no similar outbreak can occur again.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the invaluable role played by the Territorial Army; that is a subject to which we are likely to return shortly. I want to emphasise the commitment that the Government give to reservists of all kinds, and how much we appreciate the efforts that they make.
	The key to the general military operation is certainly intelligence. The extent of al-Qaeda and Taliban activity, particularly along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, continues to cause concern. Any future operation will be specifically directed towards dealing with the ability of terrorists to operate freely in that area. I can confirm that Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaeda and the Taliban continue to be targets for our operations.
	I am not in a position to be able to answer directly the hon. Gentleman's question about the duration of the commitment; I am sure that he did not expect a specific answer. All I can say is that we have a continuing responsibility to prosecute offensive operations against those who would seek to destabilise not only Afghanistan but the peace and security of the world, and we will ensure that ours is an appropriate contribution.
	As for the other activities being pursued right across government, there is a significant aid programme and we have pledged economic support to the Interim Administration, policing training is being provided by Germany, and we are involved in an extensive programme of military training—although the United States is firmly in the lead there. There is, therefore, a determined joined-up effort right across government to ensure that there will be a reconstructed Afghanistan. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, however, that the key to this lies with the Afghans themselves, which is why it is so important to give such strong support to the Loya Jirga and to the process of rebuilding the Government and the Administration of that country.
	If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman was unfair to the Department for International Development and inaccurate in his comments about the co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and that Department. On a number of occasions it has been possible for forces that arrive early in a situation that requires stabilisation to carry out reconstruction tasks with funding from DFID. That is perhaps the best example of joined-up government that I can give. Such activities also occurred in Sierra Leone, and I anticipate that they will occur again in Afghanistan. I have seen for myself the British forces in ISAF engaged in rebuilding schools and creating the conditions in which the people of Afghanistan can again live a full and peaceful life in that society.

Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me notice of his statement. I also thank his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the consultations and the advice that I received on this subject yesterday.
	May I also send my best wishes and those of my colleagues to the people involved at Bagram and their families? Our first hope is that they all make a speedy recovery. Those affected and their families will want to know whether this outbreak could have been prevented. Our forces have encountered medical problems on deployment before. In Sierra Leone, for example, 159 of them returned with malaria. Were any lessons learned from that incident, and can the Secretary of State assure us that all our forces in Afghanistan were fully inoculated before they left? Are other nations also involved? Are troops from other nations suffering such problems?
	The Secretary of State mentioned the defence medical services. The shortages have been highlighted by many Members, not least my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). We understand that there are only enough staff from the regular forces to maintain one field hospital, and that, given a strategic defence review target of 14 deployable field hospitals, we can muster only five at a push for the reserve forces. Is it not the case that unless we get the manning in the defence medical services right, there may come a time when we will not be able to deploy on combat operations because we will not have proper medical support?
	May I give the Secretary of State a chance to scotch some of the more ridiculous rumours that appear to be coming out of Bagram, especially those about the number of people in quarantine? I have heard journalists mention figures ranging from 60 to 300. Can the Secretary of State tell us roughly how many people are in quarantine? Can he confirm that all those in quarantine are medical staff, and that none are combat staff—or even special forces, as has been suggested in the press? Is it not the case that if our combat staff were being detained in quarantine, Operation Veritas would be considerably affected?
	I am pleased that Turkey is taking over the leadership of ISAF. How long does the Secretary of State expect that to last, and what preparations are being made for another nation to take over? Does the Secretary of State share my hope that some of our European partners will consider taking over, as they have the ability to do so?
	I join the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), in congratulating our forces on Operation Snipe. They did an excellent job. The Secretary of State mentioned other nations, however. Do we not know that many al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are hiding in Pakistan? What possibility is there of cross-border co-operation with Pakistan? Might our forces have hot pursuit into Pakistan, or would there be Pakistan forces on that side of the border to deal with the terrorists?
	I welcome the call-up of reservists from the Territorial Army. It shows once again how heavily we rely on the TA.
	Finally, let me assure the Secretary of State of our continued support for the operations in Afghanistan.

Geoff Hoon: As I said in answer to earlier questions, it is vital for us to understand the cause of the outbreak to ensure that no further difficulty occurs in future. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the way in which malaria affected operations in Sierra Leone. I assure him that checks have been made in relation to the forces in Afghanistan to ensure that appropriate medication has been available.
	As far as we know, this is an isolated outbreak not affecting the forces of other countries. We are, however, working hard to understand the nature of the illness, and we will take appropriate steps.
	Let me emphasise that all appropriate action has been taken in relation to quarantine measures. I have described a series of steps that have been taken. The hon. Gentleman has had a copy of my statement, and I assure him that the best possible medical and prevention advice has been made available and acted on.
	As for the defence medical services, I have spoken a number of times in the House about the difficulties that we inherited with regard to that vital contribution to our armed forces. We are making determined efforts to improve the position—which indeed already has been improved. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is muttering about the time that that has taken. He knows, or should know, how long it takes to train doctors and others with appropriate experience; if he does not know, I must tell him that it takes rather longer than five years. None the less, we are taking appropriate action to resolve the problems affecting that important contribution to the health and success of our armed forces.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), and the House, will bear with me, but ensuring that Turkey takes over the ISAF leadership has been a long and careful process. If the House will forgive me, I will not speculate on what further negotiations might be necessary in the future. I congratulate Turkey on its decision, and feel that, as a European nation, it is making an important contribution to ISAF.
	As for co-operation with Pakistan, it is important that we work with Pakistan's forces, as we have done in the recent past. They have played a valuable role along the border, and in that regard I should like to see improvement.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations about reservists.

Mike Gapes: I join others in congratulating our forces on their work in Afghanistan, and on their efforts to liberate the Muslim people of Afghanistan from Taliban tyranny. The Secretary of State mentioned the wider, non-military aspects of the campaign. Does he agree that one of those is the information campaign, and that it is vital that we redouble our efforts internationally to correct the distortions and downright fabrications put out by some organisations? In particular, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to ummahnews.com—a website edited by Faisal Bodi, terrorist apologist and columnist for The Guardian—which includes articles claiming that the attacks on 11 September were carried out at the instigation of the CIA or Mossad. Will my right hon. Friend therefore ensure that the international information campaign is redoubled so that, in the Muslim world in particular, such lies are taken into account?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who clearly has rather more time available for surfing the web than I do. He raises an important issue that is not limited to websites; difficulties with information distortion also occur rather closer to home. He rightly points out that it is crucial that we set out our aims and objectives, and that they are properly understood and represented.

Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State is right to highlight the successes of Operation Snipe, but he will be the first to admit that such an operation will necessarily be less effective without the existence of operations of equal, or greater, intensity on the other side of the border. He touched on that matter in his reply to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), but could he tell us more about operations conducted by Pakistan's military, or by other forces, on that side of the border to root out al-Qaeda terrorists?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not go into too much detail about the precise nature of those operations. However, with his characteristic common sense on such matters, he has identified an important change in the way in which those particular deployments will be made. They will be much more responsive to intelligence on the ground, and the concept of operations will reflect not only the nature of information about current conditions, but the importance of co-operation of the type that he rightly identifies as necessary.

Lynne Jones: I agree with my right hon. Friend that by destroying weapons and terrorist infrastructure our troops are playing a valuable role, and I join others in wishing those who are ill in quarantine a speedy recovery. Does the announcement that medical reservists will be called up imply that our troops are likely to be involved in combat in the near future, and is it still a campaign objective to apprehend and bring to justice Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders? My right hon. Friend said that had the troops engaged in Operation Snipe found terrorists, they would have dealt with them. What does he mean by that phraseology? How will the British Government ensure that terrorists who might be detained in such circumstances receive justice by due process?

Geoff Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that medical reservists have been called up to ensure that appropriate medical cover is available to our armed forces in the event of their being engaged in combat and requiring appropriate treatment. There is no specific connection between the two issues, other than the importance of having available the right people to deal with any problems as they arise. The specific reasons for the call-up at this stage are to give those who have been serving in the area so far a break, to allow us to rotate new people into that theatre and related theatres, and to ensure that we have appropriate resources available for the length of the current operation.
	In connection with encounters with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I used the words "dealt with" advisedly. In the event of suspect terrorists surrendering, they will be dealt with according to proper procedures under international law, which has always been the British Government's position. In the event of the terrorists offering resistance to our armed forces, we have robust rules of engagement that will allow them to deal with any threat effectively.

Nicholas Soames: I thank the Secretary of State for his very long-winded statement, and I agree with him that Operation Snipe was clearly a success in that it denied the ground to al-Qaeda. An important role remains to be played—not dissimilar to that carried out with great brilliance and distinction by British troops in Sierra Leone—in the increasing stabilisation of Afghanistan, and allowing its fledgling Government to take root and their writ to run throughout the country.
	However, all the indications and suggestions from this end that this was to be a major operation, in which it was likely that casualties would be sustained and contact would be made with the enemy, were ill judged. The hyping of military operations is unhelpful, and causes great anxiety to the families and frustration to the soldiers. There was no reason to assume that they would bump into al-Qaeda. On this occasion our intelligence was not good, because it is difficult to have good intelligence on the ground in Afghanistan.
	Will the Secretary of State consider bringing the Royal Marines home and allowing some of our other first-class infantry regiments of the line to go out and gain some experience in harsh terrain?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who normally deploys good sense and sound judgment in his military observations, has allowed himself to make an uncharacteristic misjudgment of the nature of the operations. Perhaps he has been away from the Ministry of Defence for too long; I would certainly allow him the opportunity to refresh his knowledge and understanding, because he normally speaks with much thoughtfulness.
	I invite the hon. Gentleman to return to the statement that I made at the start of the operations and read what I said to the House. He would, rightly, have been the first to criticise me if I had not warned the House of the potential risks of such an operation. If he thought a little more carefully, he would bear in mind that it followed Operation Anaconda, in which the United States conducted a similar sweep through territory in Afghanistan in order to conduct the same sort of operation as the Royal Marines have recently undertaken, but instead of taking to the hills or fleeing to Pakistan, al-Qaeda stood its ground and fought fiercely. That was the context in which I made the statement to the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose statements are not usually long-winded, will reflect on what I have said and return to his normal good humour and good form.

Marsha Singh: It would be a serious mistake to look at the present situation and claim that al-Qaeda had fled in the face of the brilliance of our Royal Marines—although I have no doubt that they are brilliant. It is clear that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are in Pakistan and other countries waiting to launch raids and attacks across the border when the time is right. If those raids start and we do not have the right of hot pursuit into Pakistan or other countries, how will we deal effectively with such incursions into Afghanistan? The long and medium-term aim should be to equip Afghanistan with its own army and security forces, because we cannot be there for ever.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has touched on two vital points. It is right to say that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are still operating in Pakistan, and that they are also operating across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The purpose of my statement was in part to inform the House of the need for further action to deal with that. As my hon. Friend noted, co-operation along that border between allied forces and the forces of Pakistan is vital.
	That is why it is important that Afghanistan should ultimately be in a position to deal with security issues itself. In my statement, I mentioned the help and support that we have received already from Afghan nationals. We are participating in a training programme for the Afghan army, which is being led by the US. In due course, we want Afghanistan to be in a position to be responsible for its own security, especially along its borders.

Andrew Robathan: Does the Secretary of State agree that close co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development is vital to the future development of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan? Will he confirm absolutely that there has been no breakdown in communications between the two Departments?
	The Secretary of State has access to information from more than 3,000 pairs of eyes in the area, so will he comment on a report that I received late last night from Kabul that there are acres and acres of poppy fields alongside the road between Jalalabad and Kabul—the road that all visitors travelling by the overland route use. That report directly contradicts what the Foreign Office said on Tuesday.

Geoff Hoon: On the aid point, I have mentioned the nature of the co-operation that existed in the past between the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development. The Department for International Development now has a specific liaison officer based with the ISAF headquarters, whose specific task is to resolve matters such as those that the hon. Gentleman and others have raised. I therefore anticipate that co-ordination will not be a problem in the future.
	As for the poppy fields, the House knows the difficulties suffered by the international community at the hands of those who grow, transport and supply the products of Afghanistan's poppy fields. It is thought that 90 per cent. of the heroin sold in the UK originates in Afghanistan. Britain and other members of the international community have achieved considerable success in reducing the supply from the current crop. Recent estimates suggest that about one third of the crop has been destroyed, but it is clear that we need to maintain the pressure and deal with the problems that poppy cultivation has caused not only in recent times but over a very long period of Afghanistan's history.

Phyllis Starkey: My right hon. Friend may not be aware that a delegation of parliamentarians from the Iranian Parliament has been meeting British parliamentarians this week. The Iranian delegation strongly made the point that unless security is established across Afghanistan, the 2 million refugees from Afghanistan who are currently in Iran will not feel able to return home. Will my right hon. Friend say what steps the British component of the next phase of ISAF deployment will take to help the Afghan Government to establish security across the whole country?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to say that security is crucial in Afghanistan, and is also vital for refugees. I am not so familiar with the problem on the border with Iran as I am with the situation on the border with Pakistan, but I can tell my hon. Friend that refugees are streaming away from the camps in Pakistan and returning to their homes and livelihoods in Afghanistan. That is an enormous and positive contribution to their country. I shall look at the situation along the border with Iran to see whether more action can be taken in the parts of Afghanistan that are close to it to give refugees the security and confidence that they require to return home.

Michael Weir: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I should like to add our good wishes for those who are ill in Bagram. I also thank the Minister of State, who last night made the effort to tell me personally about the outbreak. Although no members of 45 Commando, based in my constituency, are affected, the Secretary of State will appreciate that their families are concerned about the outbreak. I know that the Minister of State was due to visit Arbroath today to meet the families, and I hope that he will rearrange that visit for the near future.
	As for Operation Snipe, despite what is said in some sections of the media, I—and, I am sure, the families of the troops involved—greatly welcome the fact that the Marines have been able to deny territory and ordnance to the enemy without suffering any casualties themselves. What is the Secretary of State's assessment of the ability of al-Qaeda to come back into that area, given the amount of ordnance that has been destroyed in the operation?

Geoff Hoon: In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is not in the House today because he has gone to Arbroath to fulfil the commitment that he entered into previously. I take this issue seriously, because of the support that members of our armed forces receive from their families, and I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised it.
	The destruction of the arms cache has denied a valuable prize to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It is part of the reason why I am confident that we can say that Operation Snipe was a considerable success. It clearly undermined the ability of al-Qaeda to deliver its threat—but that does not mean that we can lessen our vigilance, because there may be other caches or stores to deal with.

David Hamilton: I should like to pass on my congratulations to all our armed forces on the work that they are doing in the region. I have supported this campaign from the beginning—although I am not likely to support others—and they are doing an excellent job.
	My right hon. Friend indicated that the reservists have been pulled across because they are needed in the area. Does that mean that our armed forces are overstretched? If so, would it not be better to diminish our nuclear capability so that we can pay our armed forces a decent wage and give them decent conditions?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. On his specific point about reservists, I emphasise that it is unlikely that any who have been called out by the announcement that I made today will go to Afghanistan. The important point is to have enough people available to cover the requirements of our armed forces in their various deployments across the world. Certainly, we have never tried to disguise the fact that when it comes to medics and medical support, we do not have as many people as we would like. We have to improve the necessary degree of support for our deployed armed forces.

Andrew Murrison: Our thoughts are very much with those who have fallen ill in Bagram. I suggest that the Royal Army Medical Corps must by now have a fairly good idea of what is causing the illness. It is very important to have our troops vaccinated properly. I should like to draw the Secretary of State out concerning a comment made by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence in the armed forces personnel debate on 11 April. In answer to an intervention by me, the hon. Gentleman said:
	"Nowadays nobody is deployed who has not had their vaccination and health status properly checked."—[Official Report, 11 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 220.]
	Does that advice still stand?

Geoff Hoon: There are considerable advantages in having ministerial experience of the medical world in dealing with this kind of outbreak. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the work that he has done in dealing with this difficult issue. There are a number of ideas about the cause of the illness but, as I said earlier, it is important that we get to the bottom of the specific cause of the outbreak if we can, so that we can take appropriate action in future. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires regarding the preventive steps that are taken elsewhere.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that these are important matters but we must move on to the main business.

Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) (No. 4)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we discuss the programme motion, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that three amendments on today's amendment paper have been incorrectly numbered. Two amendments tabled to clause 58 on page 1676 in the name of Kevin Brennan have been incorrectly numbered as 309 and 310. They should instead be numbered as 320 and 321. An amendment tabled to schedule 3 on page 1701 in the name of Mr. Secretary Milburn has been incorrectly numbered as 308; it should instead be numbered as 322.

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move,
	That the Orders of 29th October 2001 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme)), 23rd January 2002 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme (No. 2)) and 20th March 2002 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) (No. 3)) shall be amended by substituting for the Table, so far as relating to the second and third allotted days, the following—
	
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Second allotted day 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 1 and 17 to 40 3.45 p.m. 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 41 to 51, 53 and 64 to 74 6.00 p.m. 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 52, 54 to 63, 75, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 76 and 77, Schedule No. 2, and Clauses Nos. 78 to 80 7.00 p.m. 
			 Third allotted day  
			 Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 81 to 88, 121, 122 and 125 Three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill 
			 New Clauses relating to the remainder of Part 1, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 89 to 100, 105, 106, 114 and 115 One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill 
			 New Clauses relating to Part 2, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 107 to 113 Three and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings of the Bill 
			 New Clauses relating to the remainder of Part 3, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 101 to 104, 126, Schedules Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Clauses Nos. 127 to 134, Schedule No. 6, Clauses Nos. 135 to 137, remaining new Clauses, new Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill. 
		
	
	I hope that I shall not disappoint the House, as I rose only to move the motion. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]

Tim Loughton: I doubt that I shall get a similar cheer even if I speak for only a little longer than the hon. Lady.
	The Opposition do not intend to oppose the programme motion, although we are against programme motions in principle. We are grateful for the additional allocation of two full days for consideration of the Bill after the abortive first day when, due to an emergency debate—also on Afghanistan—our deliberations were curtailed and we had only two hours for debate.
	I want to record, however, that we are not entirely happy with the events of recent days, which have led to our having to confront a large number of amendments and new clauses during the allotted two days. A total of 319 amendments and 16 new clauses were tabled previously and a good many of them were dispatched during the two-hour debate on 20 March, including many Conservative amendments on substantial subjects. Those amendments were not debated and were all subject to the guillotine that fell after two hours.
	Nevertheless, during the rest of today and the next allotted day on Monday, there are still left for debate 210 Government amendments and five Government new clauses, 11 Conservative amendments and three new clauses, seven Liberal Democrat amendments and one new clause—although they are purely on the subject of adoption by unmarried people—and 47 Back-Bench amendments and four new clauses. A total of 275 amendments and 13 new clauses are to be debated—more than all the amendments tabled during the entire Committee stage.
	We are especially aggrieved because the vast majority of the Government amendments have appeared only during the past few days: 136 were tabled last Thursday, 18 on Monday and a handful on Tuesday. We only received on Monday a letter from the Minister, dated 10 May, by way of explanation of some of those amendments. We have had only a few days to start studying some detailed and extensive new amendments.
	I remind the House that the Committee stage ended on 17 January—four months ago. There were 24 Committee sittings between 6 November 2001 and 17 January 2002 when the Government could have considered those matters in more detail. We tried to start our consideration on Report on 20 March, so why have the Government taken so long to come up with all these new amendments? Why have they tabled them at such a late stage in the Bill's proceedings, thus giving the Opposition very little time to scrutinise them properly before the two days on Report?
	The Bill is not party political. We have supported it throughout its passage and we intend to continue to do so. We have made many constructive and positive amendments to try to improve it. However, the current situation is extremely unsatisfactory. There are some huge groups of amendments—the third group contains no fewer than 59—but we have only limited time to debate them. We have many meaty subjects to debate today, but all the Conservative amendments have been timetabled today, leaving less contentious issues for debate on Monday, so that timetabling is questionable.
	I do not want to detain the House any longer because, for the reasons that I have mentioned, we need to get on and maximise the time that we have to debate the Bill. In the few minutes that I shall take, it is worth putting on record that this is not the most courteous way in which the Government could have treated the House, particularly those hon. Members who have spent many weeks and months living and breathing the Bill. We have done so for the past six months, but debate is now being curtailed to just two days even though we have an extraordinarily large amount of work to do—much more than was originally intended. I will not oppose the programme motion, although we have problems with it in principle.

Evan Harris: I should like to take this opportunity to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about the number and the short notice of the Government amendments, and therefore the crowding of today's agenda in particular.
	In addition, many hon. Members will think it regrettable that it is not possible to vote today on amendment No. 158, which deals with the substantive definition in relation to unmarried couples. Unfortunately, it appears that, by virtue of the programme motion, the decision on that amendment can be taken only on Monday, so dissociating the decision from the debate. For those reasons, I, too, am concerned about the programme motion, but for the same reasons as those given by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, we do not propose to press the motion to a Division.
	Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Adoption and Children Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Considerations applying to the exercise of powers

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 162, in page 1, line 9, after "life", insert—
	', and that of any sibling or half-sibling of the child, having regard to their age and relationship.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 159, in page 2, line 16, after "the child" insert—
	'(4A) The court or adoption agency may not have regard to any estrangement of the child from his parents caused wholly or substantially by the application of provisions of this Act or of the Children Act 1989.'.
	No. 1, in page 2, line 19, after "background", insert—
	', subject to the proviso that such consideration shall be secondary to the matters to be considered in subsections (2) and (3).'.

Andrew Turner: When I became a Member of Parliament, I did not expect to have to deal with a large number of inquiries in my constituency surgery relating to child care and adoption issues; but, in my first few months here, they were some of the most significant issues that came before me. I am glad therefore to have this opportunity to move an amendment based on my experience before and after my election.
	It is said that hard cases make bad law, but it is certainly true to say that bad law makes hard cases. I hope that amendments Nos. 162 and 159—the two very simple amendments that I have proposed—will alleviate two possible injustices in the Bill. Indeed, if such provisions had been effective previously, they may have alleviated injustices that may have taken place.
	It is obviously not my intention to refer in detail to any case, but I shall refer to my long association with one of the families involved—it dates back to 1999. It is almost difficult to understand, certainly from my lay position on such matters, that a decision on a child taken into care at the age of nine months in 1997 was not taken until September 2000. In other words, he spent three years and four months in a sort of limbo because of the toings and froings of the judicial and child care process, which concluded with the decision that he should be adopted.
	The Bill could address two issues that may or may not have made a difference to the decision in that case, but they would certainly have made the proceedings fairer, and I address those issues in my two amendments. Amendment No. 162 relates to families where one child is being put forward for adoption, but other children may not be. Clause 1 clearly states:
	"The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life."
	Of course, if children come from a family, there may be more than one child whose welfare should be considered. The fact that one child is being put forward for adoption does not in any way diminish the responsibility of the court to take account of the interests of the other children. The clause, however, refers to the child who is the subject of the proceedings; it does not refer at all to children who may not be the subject of proceedings.
	My first amendment therefore proposes that the interests of a sibling or half-sibling should also be of paramount consideration, having regard to their age and relationship to the first child. Clearly, if the sibling is an older brother who is away at university and has little contact with a child of nine or 10 months, the court may wish to place less emphasis on that relationship than on that of, say, a twin, particularly if the twins were six years old. If one is put forward for adoption and the other is not—I realise that this may be unusual—it seems wrong that the second child should not be considered on an equal basis with the first. That is the reasoning behind amendment No. 162.

Meg Munn: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is important for each child's concern to be considered individually? Their needs in relation to their family relationships with siblings and other family members are dealt with in subsection (4)(c) and (f). That is the appropriate way to consider the needs of siblings.

Andrew Turner: I agree with the hon. Lady's first proposition but not with her second. The reason for that is to do with the word "paramount". If one child's interests are paramount, those of the other child are, by definition, of less importance—they must be taken account of but they are not equal. I see no reason why two children in the same family who may be of the same age should be treated unequally by the courts in relation to such proceedings. Clearly, an effect on one may be equal on another; indeed, it may be equal and opposite on another. I accept the intention of subsection (4), but it does not deal with the issue of the word "paramount".
	Amendment No. 159—my second amendment—considers the length of time that proceedings can go on and the effect of that estrangement on the natural parents of a child. I should like to refer to the judgment in the case that I have in mind. Among other things, it states:
	"There has been delay in this case"—
	three years and one month's delay. It continues:
	"The obvious consequence of this is that"—
	the child—
	"has been able to become more firmly settled in the home of"—
	the prospective adopters—
	"whilst contact with his parents and"—
	his sister—
	"has continued at a level which would usually be regarded as inconsistent with a plan for adoption."
	That is the judgment. It seems incredibly unfair to parents who are simply pursuing their rights, as the local authority is pursuing the rights of the child, under this and other legislation, that the passage of time should lead to the estrangement of the child to such an extent that the court may consider that nothing may have been wrong in that relationship except the passage of time. In the case that I have in mind, no charge has ever been preferred against either parent, and no arrest has ever been made of either parent. The only reason that I can see, in reading the judgment, is the passage of time.
	I accept, of course, that three years and one month in the case of a child who was four at the time of adoption is a very long time. That period allows much time for the formulation of bonds with the foster parents and prospective adopters. However, the parents concerned feel deeply that it is unfair that the court should take into account that estrangement, which is not their fault, when deciding on adoption.

Sandra Gidley: Unfortunately, I feel that the amendments are unnecessary, although I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). Everything that we need is written down in black and white in clause 1(2):
	"The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life."
	The court is considering the child who is being adopted and must put his or her interests first.
	I was moved by the hon. Gentleman's example of a case involving twins, who might be split at birth, which would have a profound effect on them. Ultimately, however, the court must deal with the case before it and put that child first. When considering a placement for a child, the situation of siblings and half-siblings must be taken into account, but all those considerations cannot be paramount.
	Similarly, amendment No. 1, which would downplay considerations of ethnicity and religion, is well meaning, but misguided. It is right and proper that some consideration should be given to the religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background of the child. However, that must not become an absolute credo. Perhaps that is what the amendment is aiming at. In the past, social workers have sought a perfect fit. In today's culturally diverse society, one could search in vain, for example, for someone who is one eighth Pakistani, three quarters Welsh and one eighth Scottish. What is far more important is that the child should find a place in a loving home that can provide the best care and love available for a child in need—nothing more and nothing less.
	I am not a regular churchgoer, but I recognise that for some people acknowledgement of their religion is very important. If a person or a couple felt that they had to give a child up for adoption, the assurance that religion would be a prime concern would be powerful. Christians baptise their children at a very young age and would want to ensure that that commitment was honoured. They would believe that doing so was fundamental to the child's spiritual welfare. It is important that we retain the religious element, whatever the religion.
	Having said that, the amendment would serve a purpose. When a social worker has to decide about a placement, I suspect that it is always a case of balancing all the complex factors and influences in an attempt ultimately to achieve what is right for the child.

Julian Brazier: Although I welcome the thinking behind the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), I cannot say that I support them. On amendment No. 162, my hon. Friend is right that the welfare of siblings is extremely important and I have also dealt with a number of harrowing constituency cases. None the less, those on the Opposition Front Bench support the view of almost all people concerned with adoption that the paramount consideration before a court must be the welfare of the child whose case is being considered. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said, there is scope elsewhere to take account of the views of siblings.
	I shall focus on amendment No. 1, which we tabled. Should we not get the assurances that we seek from the Government, I should like a separate vote on that amendment. Almost every critic of the adoption system has focused on the delays. It is extremely rare that an adoption goes through in the 12-month period that is now the Government's target. Sometimes, they can take three or four years. In most cases, they do not happen at all.
	The reasons for the delay are many. One factor that is mentioned again and again is what the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, described as seeking the "perfect fit". No one in this House would disagree with clause 1(5) when it states that the court or adoption agency must pay
	"due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background."
	The Opposition's concern is that that consideration is being put on a par with subsection (3), which refers to delay, hence our amendment, which would ensure that subsection (5) should be
	"subject to the proviso that such consideration shall be secondary to the matters to be considered in subsections (2) and (3),"
	that is, the paramountcy and delay provisions.
	I shall give the House two examples, the first of which made the national press. A single mixed-race woman of independent means was approved as an adopter. Through the adoption agency concerned she found a child who had been in care since she was a baby. Babies are the easiest children to place and it is disgraceful that there should have been such a delay in placing a baby. The child was two and a half years old at the time. Although the woman was of mixed race, it was a slightly different mixture from the child, but each of them had a middle eastern and a European element. The woman, however, was Christian and the baby came from an Islamic background. Islam has no tradition of adoption. Children who cannot be cared for by their own parents are normally looked after within the extended family. After a lengthy delay, the woman was turned down on both racial and religious grounds. By that time, the child had been in care for three years. No other adopter was in sight.
	If a court were faced with that case, is clause 1, as drafted, clear? Is what Parliament intends clear—that delay must override those other considerations if necessary? I do not believe that it is and that is why we want those innocuous extra words added to make it clear which subsection overrides which—that delay is more important than those other factors.

Meg Munn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that one or two cases of that nature, which are indeed a cause for concern, get into the national press shows that common sense prevails for the vast majority of children? Children are placed in loving families that best meet their needs. If those families can match their cultural, linguistic and racial characteristics, that is the best case, but that is not achieved for the vast majority. Therefore, a good match is found and children are placed quickly in loving homes. To suggest that the paramountcy provision is not paramount is nonsense.

Julian Brazier: I agreed with the last point made by the hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, but I could not disagree more strongly on these matters. Study after study in the past few years—including the Prime Minister's own review—has identified the delay that is endemic in the system as one of its greatest single weaknesses. The plain fact is that the vast majority of children in care—even those who have been in care for several years—are not satisfactorily adopted. The most recent figures that I have seen show that about 1,500 adoptive parents are still waiting for children. Therefore, I do not accept the hon. Lady's argument.

Gary Streeter: I am sure that my hon. Friend supports the Government's aim to increase the number of these children who are adopted. Those of us whose friends have tried to adopt know that they have encountered bureaucratic difficulties and delays. Adoption is not an easy process for many people at present. Does he agree that if the Government could streamline that process and deal with the problem of delay, we would be well on the way to increasing the number of children adopted, which would be one practical measure to emerge from our proceedings?

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, the Government have stated that it is their purpose to deal with delay.
	Let me give one more example. A couple who contacted the Adoption Forum lived in a racially mixed area of central London, which was reflected in their circle of friends. In 1996, they successfully adopted a seven-year-old white English boy into their family. In 1999, they applied to adopt his mixed-race older half-sister who wanted to live with them. The local authority concerned—I will not name it, but it has one of the poorest records on adoption and is at the bottom of the adoption league table—refused the placement on the grounds that she was of mixed race and the couple were white. The ruling has had a detrimental effect on their relationship with the son and, even more so, between the son and his sister. The girl remains in foster care and has suffered because of having to had move many times.

Jonathan R Shaw: We discussed that matter in Committee. One of the key things that we picked up from the evidence sessions, which were many and worth while, was that we do not want hard and fast rules when we deal with adoption. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the keys to increasing adoption to meet the Government's target of 40 per cent. is for adoptions to be successful? I do not want delays in the process, but it is crucial that we get assessments right. Nothing could be worse for a child than to be placed with an adoptive family and for that placement to break down. The consequences of that are perhaps even worse than a delay. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that assessment is crucial and that it is vital and paramount to take account of matters in the Bill?

Julian Brazier: Assessment is important, but cross-racial adoptions do not always fail, a point repeatedly made by a number of Labour Members. The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety made that point when he was Minister of State, Department of Health. In the debate on the Adoption and Children Bill that fell just before the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked that Minister's successor, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), to note that
	"a requirement to match the religious background of a child with that of would-be adoptive parents has previously made it difficult to find adoptive parents."
	The Minister replied:
	"We have always made it very clear that we want the system to operate as efficiently and speedily as possible, and that we shall not allow issues to do with political correctness to get in the way of a child's best welfare interests."
	I intervened to say:
	"Just now,
	the Minister
	"was absolutely clear about the need to eliminate unacceptable delay in the process. However, clause 1(4) omits anything about that need. Instead, that subsection includes the words 'due consideration', which, legally, are not absolutely clear cut."
	I then asked the Minister:
	"Could not those words make it possible for courts to return to the very political correctness against which he has rightly and repeatedly spoken?"
	The Minister assured us:
	"Ultimately, however, we have made it very clear that we believe that there should not be unnecessary and unacceptable delay in the process. If that is one of the issues that can give rise to delay, the Bill should address it."—[Official Report, 26 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 704–705.]
	All we want to do is to ensure that considerations are secondary to the paramountcy principle and the problem of delay.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) highlighted some worrying cases from his own experience, but other hon. Members reinforced the Government's position on the amendments. It is clear—we have widespread support for this—that clause 1 ensures that foremost among the principles that govern decisions on adoption is the welfare of the child throughout their life. That should be the paramount consideration. It is not to say, however, that the interests of siblings and, in particular, the relationship that adopted children have with their relatives should not be considered.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said, subsection (4)(f) explicitly states that courts and adoption agencies are obliged when considering a child's welfare, to consider the relationship that he or she has with relatives and any other relevant person. The definition of relatives makes it clear that that includes siblings. There is a wide-ranging obligation to consider the views and wishes of siblings and parents, which is the focus of the hon. Gentleman's amendments. As hon. Members made clear, however, it is not possible both to have paramountcy for the adopted child and to give equal consideration to another issue. That is the fundamental problem with amendment No. 162.
	Government amendment No. 163 suggests that estrangement is a function of delay and should be taken into consideration. The Bill sets out important safeguards to ensure that delay does not happen. In relation to bearing down on delay, it is clear in clause 1 that courts must have regard to delay and welfare. Clause 105 introduces for the first time timetables in court to avoid delay.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that when children have been placed for a long time, the decision is, in effect, a fait accompli when they get to court. The point of the placement provisions is to bring forward either the time when parents consent to their children being placed for adoption or the time when that is determined by a placement order so that it happens much earlier in the process. In that way, we expect to avoid the problems that the hon. Gentleman identified.
	On amendment No. 1, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned delay. We rightly debated that at length in Committee. I share his concern and desire to eradicate delay from the process wherever possible. However, clause 1 sets out the general principles that apply across the adoption provisions. Subsection (3) places a duty on courts and adoption agencies to bear it in mind at all times that any delay in reaching a decision is in general likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. Subsection (5) places an obligation on the adoption agency, when placing a child for adoption, to give due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background. It is the interaction of those two subsections that is the focus of amendment No. 1.
	The starting point in considering the issue has to be that the subsections need to be read together. That is their legal effect. Subsection (5) cannot override the obligation in subsection (3) to have regard to possible harmful effects of delay. That overarching provision applies across all decisions relating to the adoption of a child, including the placement decision. However, during the debate in Committee and in interventions today, my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) and for Sheffield, Heeley made the important point that we must give due weight during the adoption process to the factors set out in subsection (5) that could have a significant impact on lifelong issues of identity—for example, the child's racial and cultural background.
	The clause ensures that that will happen and that there is appropriate consideration. However, the Government share the concerns that have been expressed about eradicating unnecessary delay from the system. We are determined to bear down on that delay. That is why our new national adoption standards make it completely clear that while a child's ethnic origin, cultural background, religion and language should be recognised, we need also to target our recruitment efforts to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of people wishing to adopt to enable children to be placed with families that reflect these factors.
	The standards are equally clear on the harmful effects of delay. They provide explicitly—almost in the words that the hon. Member for Canterbury used—that children will not be kept waiting indefinitely for a perfect family. They set challenging time scales for matching children. They state that a plan for permanence must be made once a child has been in care for four months. That plan must have clear, monitored time scales. We have issued binding statutory guidance to local authorities to enforce that.

Julian Brazier: I am well aware of the circulars. The Minister will know how many local authorities ignore these binding instructions. Many children did not have care plans for many years after such plans became a statutory requirement, for example. Why will the Minister not put such provisions into the Bill so that the court rather than the social services department will recognise its duty?

Jacqui Smith: There is delay before we get to the court. The importance of adoption standards, and the statutory basis for them, is that we ensure that adoption agencies bear down on delay. The standards are not optional extras, which seems to have been suggested. They are statutory guidance, and they will be expected to be in place from April 2003. We have already begun to focus on eradicating delay from the system so that we might make some progress. The average time for which a child is looked after before being adopted has fallen from three years and four months in 1996–97 to two years and nine months in 2000–01.
	That is still too long, and that is why we are taking action—we began to do so after we debated these matters in Committee—to set a challenging new time scale to our adoption PSA target. Our aim will be to ensure that nationally by 2004 95 per cent. of children should be placed for adoption within 12 months of the decision being taken that adoption is in their best interests. That is a further signal of our determination to tackle harmful delay.
	Through legislation and through the wider action that the Government are taking, there has been progress in reducing delay. We shall monitor progress and we shall ensure that continued progress is made to tackle harmful delay. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 159 on the basis of the Minister's response. The hon. Lady's response to amendment No. 162, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, illustrates a simple difference of opinion. She and my hon. Friend believe that the interests of one child should be paramount over those of another child. I believe that the interests of two children should be equal and should be considered as such. However, I realise that perhaps this is not the time to press the issue. I hope that it will be considered in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will move on to discuss Government amendment No. 26, with which it will be convenient to take Government new clause 6.

Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What will happen to amendment No. 1?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have not missed the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 1. We take amendments in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to vote on his amendment in due course.

Julian Brazier: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you tell us when we are likely to take a vote? We are not clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendments and new clauses are debated in certain groupings, but they are voted on in a different order. Amendment No. 1, on which the hon. Gentleman wishes to vote, will be dealt with after we have debated Government amendment No. 26 and Government new clause 6. He will then have an opportunity to vote.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 5, after "harm", insert—
	'(within the meaning of the Children Act 1989)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 6—Meaning of "harm" in the 1989 Act.

Rosie Winterton: I am pleased to move the amendment and to discuss the new clause, which I believe will assist in tackling the scourge of domestic violence and the terrible effect that it can have on children. One woman in four experiences domestic violence at some point in her lifetime. A survey undertaken in 2001 showed that one in five applications for contact with children involved allegations of serious domestic violence. We know also that 70 per cent. of children in care are likely to have experienced violence at home at some point.
	I thank in particular the Women's Aid Federation of England, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo's and the NCH for the candid and constructive way in which they have entered into discussions with me and officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department on this important subject.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), who have all campaigned for greater protection for the victims of domestic violence.
	As a result of the campaigning and our own research, the Government are acutely aware of the concerns that have been raised. We believe, as many organisations have made clear, that it is right that the interests of the child are protected and are paramount in the court process. That is why we want to clarify the provisions in clause 1, which set out the key principles that are to apply throughout the adoption provisions.
	Clause 1(4) sets out a checklist of factors to which courts and adoption agencies must have regard in considering the welfare of the child. Government amendment No. 26 makes it clear that the meaning of "harm" in subsection (4)(e) of the checklist is to be the same as that used in the Children Act 1989. In other words, harm includes ill-treatment or impairment of development. We think that it is the interpretation that the courts would use anyway, but one of the aims of the Bill is to bring adoption law into line with the Children Act. It is appropriate that we spell it out for the avoidance of doubt.
	During the proceedings of the Special Standing Committee, a number of children's charities and organisations, which I have already mentioned, expressed concern that not enough account was being taken of the impact on children of domestic violence. On 17 January, in Committee, I made it clear that the Government were seriously considering how these concerns could be met. First, the Government considered the approach in Northern Ireland, which seeks to ensure that domestic violence is considered in all applications for contact or residence. However, we want to go further and ensure that the impact on children of witnessing abuse is considered in all proceedings under the Children Act when the welfare checklist is used, in both public and private law. As I said, Government amendment No. 26 would extend that to adoption proceedings.
	At present, a court, when deciding whether to grant contact between a parent and child, has to take into account the welfare checklist in the Children Act, which includes considering whether a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering any harm. New clause 6 amends the definition of harm in the checklist to include a harm that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering as the result of witnessing the abuse of others, including domestic violence and violence which, while not domestic, may nevertheless have affected the child, such as a parent continually being harassed or intimidated or a parent harassing or intimidating others.
	The definition of ill-treatment is already provided for in the Children Act; it is broader than physical violence, and includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment that are not physical. However, the Government recognise that amendments to primary legislation are not enough on their own; I certainly accept concerns that existing provisions in primary legislation are not being applied consistently. We therefore have in hand a broad programme of work that will provide more effective protection for children and victims of violence. I pay tribute to the president of the family division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who has done a lot of work to ensure that it is aware of action that courts should take.
	We hope to take a number of steps, such as amending court application forms to include specific questions about violence or ill-treatment of children. We shall also amend court rules to oblige courts to determine whether violence or ill-treatment has taken place if an allegation has been made and, if so, what impact that has or is likely to have on the child. We are also looking at the way in which we can disseminate more effectively the guidelines on parental contact with children in cases of domestic violence, which were produced by the Children Act sub-committee of the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on family law.
	We are aware of the many concerns about the availability of support at contact centres. We are working with the National Association of Child Contact Centres, and the Lord Chancellor's Department has launched a consultation so that we can define more effectively the support provided by such centres.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Lady give the House an assurance that she is satisfied that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will have sufficient officers on the ground if supervision is required? I agree entirely with what she is saying and accept wholeheartedly what the Government are doing in that area, but will she nevertheless assure the House that there will be sufficient funding and manning in that part of the CAFCASS operation?

Rosie Winterton: When meeting CAFCASS staff, I have been extremely impressed with their ideas on contact centres. Our priority is to ensure that we are using existing funding for contact centres effectively. Many cases involve possible domestic violence or violence against a child, so we have to make sure that proper services for supervised contact are available. We are therefore working with the National Association of Child Contact Centres to make sure that we have a good definition of such contact and eventually, through CAFCASS, can ensure that there are clusters of contact centres in each region.
	I accept that we need to undertake further work, but we can make immediate changes with the amendments and secondary legislation. I hope that we will continue to work with voluntary organisations, making use of their experience and expertise to develop our proposals. The amendments send a clear message about the Government's determination to tackle domestic violence and protect children. I very much hope that that message is reinforced by support from Members on both sides of the House.

Elfyn Llwyd: I wholeheartedly welcome the amendments, which, if overdue, are based on good research. A 1999 survey of 130 parents by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that during contact 76 per cent. of the children were abused; 10 per cent. were sexually abused; 15 per cent. were physically abused; 62 per cent. suffered emotional harm, with which I suspect we are dealing in the amendments; 36 per cent. suffered neglect; and 26 per cent. were abducted. There is therefore a clear need for the amendments, and I am sure that they will receive wholehearted acceptance. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) has campaigned long and hard on this issue, as have other Members.
	The Minister said that the thrust of the Bill was to bring a particular area of law into line with the Children Act 1989; the checklist and the proposals in the amendments are both useful and helpful. Experience tells me that some of the most damaged children have witnessed violence being perpetrated on others—typically, but not exclusively, violence by the father on the mother. Often, those youngsters have not suffered physical violence per se, but have undoubtedly suffered emotional damage. I therefore welcome the amendments and the consequent change to the Children Act.
	The amendments will go some way towards addressing the awful problem of emotional harm inflicted on young people and children. Like me, other Members may have received a letter from a lady from Essex. I do not have her permission, so I shall not give her name, but last week she wrote to me:
	"My ex-husband received five years' imprisonment for GBH."
	During his imprisonment, her ex-husband applied for contact. There were obviously good grounds for objections but, in due course, he gained unsupervised access, which is ridiculous. A violent person with a history of violence against many different people who breached a number of undertakings is unfit to have any contact at all. The lady concludes:
	"Remember, contact/residence is the child's right, not the parent's. Children should never be forced to have contact."
	That is quite right. I know that other Members wish to speak, so I conclude by saying once more that I wholeheartedly agree with the amendments, which are a considerable step forward.

Margaret Moran: I warmly welcome Government new clause 6 and the comprehensive set of measures being discussed to tackle a difficult and sensitive issue. The Government have taken a landmark decision to recognise in child protection legislation the impact of domestic violence on a child and the harm that a child may suffer as a result of witnessing domestic violence.
	The further amendments to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred require the courts, when they make contact orders, to decide whether domestic violence has taken place and, if so, its present and possible future impact on the child. That is a significant step forward in protecting our children, which is warmly welcomed not just by many hon. Members, but by a coalition of children's charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, NCH Action for Children, Barnardo's, the Children's Society and the Women's Aid Federation. The wide scope of the measure, which deals with violence and other forms of abuse that may harm a child, is particularly welcome.
	The Bill extends the right of contact to unmarried parents. It is right that parents, married or otherwise, should have contact with their children in all normal circumstances, but we must ensure that where such contact takes place, the child's welfare is paramount and the necessary safeguards are in place. I welcome the restatement of that principle in my hon. Friend's remarks today.
	The courts must ensure that the welfare of the child is taken seriously. The Government and children's charities recognise that as a major issue. In more than half the cases in which court welfare reports are produced, domestic violence occurs where contact is ordered. The new clause recognises the trauma caused to a child by witnessing ill-treatment.
	As my hon. Friend knows, there is concern about whether case law precedents have distorted the intended meaning of the Children Act 1989. I refer to three cases in which that concern has been raised. In re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse) 1995, the House of Lords ruled that a higher standard of proof than the simple balance of probabilities is required in family law cases involving serious allegations of abuse of children. That raises concern about the welfare safeguards in the Children Act.
	Similarly, in re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) 1995, the Master of the Rolls ruled that contact is almost always in the child's interest. Many children's charities are worried that these cases, alongside A v. N (Committal: Refusal of Contact) 1996, have to some extent resulted in the courts, when making contact orders, attaching insufficient importance to the welfare of the child, and particularly the safety of the child. We therefore need to restate the paramount importance of the child's welfare, and consider further ways of making that clear, whether through regulations, best practice or other measures.
	We know from research carried out by the Women's Aid Federation and others that despite guidelines intended to tighten up contact proceedings and to prevent contact where there is evidence of violence or abuse to the child, it still takes place. The courts continue to grant contact, frequently unsupervised contact, to violent or abusive parents. A recent survey revealed cases in which orders for unsupervised contact were granted to schedule 1 offenders and to parents whose behaviour had resulted in children being placed on the child protection register.
	In two recent cases, three children were put on the child protection register after one of them was assaulted by the father during a contact visit. Despite that, the court subsequently granted unsupervised contact to the father, and recently there has been another violent incident involving the children. The mother, who was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome as a result of that man's violence towards her, says that she is not opposed to contact, but has repeatedly asked for visits to be supervised. One child told his teacher that he has nightmares about his mother being killed, and that he wants to die.
	In another case that illustrates the point, a woman was advised by her solicitor that there was no point in contesting her violent ex-partner's application for a contact order, because the father and child had the right to see each other. The solicitor gave that advice knowing that the father is a convicted schedule 1 offender. The mother reluctantly agreed to an order that specified unsupervised contact every fortnight.
	Similar cases go through the courts all too frequently. I welcome the moves in the new clause and, I hope, in subsequent discussions to consider further measures to ensure the safety of our children and to prevent them from being put at risk of severe harm, violence or abuse.
	I hope that when we consider the measures that my hon. Friend outlined, we will examine closely the training of the judiciary. I understand that members of the judiciary are required to undertake only 30 minutes of statutory training in relation to domestic violence, even though more than half the cases with which many of them deal are domestic violence cases. Such minimal training cannot be acceptable for those dealing with such difficult and sensitive cases.

Andrew Turner: I am pleased that the amendments have been tabled, and like many hon. Members, I have been asked to support them. However, I am concerned about a certain imbalance in the hon. Lady's—and, for that matter, the Minister's—presentation, which tended to emphasise violence by the man against the woman. I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that the reverse is possible. Will she clarify whether the amendment is designed to cover mental cruelty as well? I see that the Minister agrees. Does the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) agree that mental cruelty can be perpetrated by the parent with care against the child by slagging off the parent without care?

Margaret Moran: Of course I concede that there are instances of violence by the mother in the circumstances under discussion, although research has shown that that is infinitely less frequent than violence by the father. The new clause is gender-neutral. We are all endeavouring to prevent violence and harm to a child from either parent. Domestic violence by men against women is more prevalent; one in four women are likely to experience some sort of domestic violence during their lives.
	The courts seem to believe that the Children Act 1989 contains a strong presumption of contact almost always being in the best interests of the child, but that needs to be balanced against the possible risks to the child's safety. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing, in conjunction with her ministerial colleagues in the domestic violence inter-ministerial group, to address such serious issues as the lack of definition and standards for supervised and unsupervised contact.
	I warmly welcome the work that is being undertaken to ensure that proper contact centres are available when and where they are needed, given that only 12 per cent. of contact centres currently offer supervised contact, and most are run by excellent and worthy, but possibly less experienced, volunteers. I also strongly agree that we need to ensure consistency in court practice and make it clear to the courts that the welfare of the child means just that. I welcome the amendments and I hope that we shall have continuing dialogue on how to ensure that every measure is taken to protect our children in these circumstances.

Tim Loughton: I support the Government's amendments, and I do so briefly, mindful of the fact that we have 94 amendments and one new clause to deal with before 3.45 pm. A later group of amendments also deals with parent contact and I hope that if we do not reach that, this important subject will be revisited in another place.
	In Committee, we supported the intentions of the amendments. The Minister did a lot of work subsequently into how they could best become part of the legislation. I am glad of that, and I welcome the resulting Government amendment No. 26 and Government new clause 6. I also fully appreciate the great experience of and work done by the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) in furnishing her own amendments. They are based on much detailed work, and I am sure that the pressure that they have brought to bear has enabled the Government to move further along the road, although not as far as many of us would have wished. However, it is a good start.
	We are all aware of horrendous cases of domestic violence and its effect on children—the subsequent break-up of families, homelessness problems and the psychological effects on children who are scarred for many years thereafter—many of which we heard about in Committee. We heard many alarming accounts of the injury that can be inflicted on children during contact with violent parents—mostly men, but not exclusively—resulting, in the most horrendous cases, in the death of a child. We heard some truly awful stories.
	I, too, congratulate the women's refuges, the Women's Aid Federation and the Children's Society on their intensive, sensitive and effective lobbying. I declare an interest as patron of Brighton's women's refuge, which does a good job in my part of the world.
	I particularly welcome the fact that the amendments extend the definition of harm to include the damage done to children witnessing the results of domestic violence between parents in the home without their having to be an eye witness to that domestic violence. That is domestic violence, although not in the strict sense of the definition that we have had. It is right that the Minister has taken account of that because it all constitutes ill-treatment and abuse, which has devastating effects on children who may then end up being the subject of adoption orders.
	I know that there will be problems of definition in the courts. I, too, have spoken to family division judges who have said that it is already a problem. However, the amendment and the new clause send out a clear statement of intent to judges and to the courts that the Government take the problem seriously, as do we. It is right that those factors should be taken into account when considering contact orders and what is best for the child's welfare, which is, after all, what is at the heart of the Bill.
	As the Minister says, the amendment goes further than the Northern Ireland model and much of this will also have a bearing on the sort of adoption support services that are structured within the Bill. I echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who was an active member of the Committee, including his concerns about the staffing of CAFCASS, which has been a problem and to which reference was made in Committee.
	This is the first time that domestic violence has been legally recognised as a child protection issue, and I associate myself with that development. I realise that much work remains to be done and that we need to go a lot further, but that is for a more specialised piece of legislation dealing primarily with the subject. I hope that, in due course, the Government will revisit the subject, giving a greater airing to the complicated problems of domestic violence. The amendment and the new clause are a good start. They have the Opposition's full support and I congratulate the Minister on them.

Sandra Gidley: I want to join the love-in and congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on highlighting the issue so effectively in Committee. As a result of her work the Minister has been brought on board and introduced the relevant measures.
	I was initially pleased to add my name to the extensive new clause 10, but that has been withdrawn because it needs considerable further work. I hope that that will be done in the other place, but I do not know whether there will be sufficient time.
	In most cases, I agree that the interests of the child are best served by maintaining contact with both parents, but, unfortunately, as it stands, the system fails to protect children from abusers who are known to them.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned the lobbying that has taken place. I suspect that all hon. Members have been deluged with mail from charities and women's refuges. One cannot fail to be moved by some of the cases. Many of the letters were the same, but there were some heart-rending personal stories, including cases of children who have been murdered during unsupervised contact. That sounds melodramatic, but the 1999 survey of parents found that 76 per cent. of the children of parents interviewed had been abused in some way during the contact visits ordered by the courts. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) broke those figures down even further. That is a powerful message that we must keep sight of.
	In many ways, it is a great sadness that it is necessary to introduce the amendment at all, because it means that in the past we have failed. In particular, we have failed children who are too vulnerable to take care of themselves. Since being elected it has been a huge sadness to me to hear from parents who have just gone through a divorce. Invariably, children are used as pawns in an unattractive game in which the parents score points against each other. It is not uncommon for a parent, or even a grandparent or set of grandparents, to make serious allegations about the behaviour of the other party, which may be unfounded.
	It is essential that strenuous efforts are made to establish the truth. I cannot emphasise that enough. If someone gets it wrong, it means that an innocent parent is being prevented from seeing their child. The balance is a fine and difficult one, but it is up to us to try to strike it. The question is vexed. We must protect our young without creating a climate where we encourage ever-escalating litigation and counter-litigation.
	I support new clause 6, which improves the definition of harm in the Children Act. It is essential that we highlight the fact that domestic violence is unacceptable. Writing this speech, I was worried that if I banged on about men beating up women I would receive letters from men saying, "Hey, what about us. We get beaten up by our wives as well." But we must acknowledge that domestic violence against women is a bigger problem, and I make no apology for saying that today. However, any violence is unacceptable.
	If children regularly witness domestic violence, they believe that it is the norm. Children believe that their immediate environment is the usual one and they have no experience of a kinder world. It is essential that this self-perpetuating cycle is broken and we must do all that we can to achieve that. I welcome new clause 6.

Robert Walter: I welcome the amendment and the new clause. I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on all the work that she has put in on the subject. I have been pleased to be associated with her in tabling amendments in Committee and new clause 10, which we have now dropped.
	These are important amendments. That fact was brought home to me within the past month in my constituency surgery, when a distraught mother came to see me about a contact order that had been granted to her ex-husband although he had a record of violence and sexual abuse. The court welfare officer was indifferent to that, and the judge dismissed it out of hand and granted unsupervised access to the children.
	The Government have more work to do, but if we can get this message into the Bill perhaps in time they can introduce further measures.

Jonathan Djanogly: The discussion of contact is welcome because it was one of the most important matters that we did not discuss at all in Committee, owing to Government timetabling. That is an important point to make, not least because members of the Committee received more letters on the topic than on any other. That said, I note that the contact provisions themselves are so far down the selection list that they will probably again fail to be discussed, so it will be left entirely to the other House to review the matter.
	I do not want to add much to what has been said, partly because we need to move on. I speak to many people who are not as knowledgeable as hon. Members present about the process of adoption, and they often assume that the question of contact does not often arise, because adoption involves the child being permanently taken away from the natural parents. It is important to place on the record that that is absolutely not the case in this day and age. The norm is that there will always be contact, which is right and proper. We should therefore see this as an issue that affects the vast majority of adopted children and one that it is particularly important for us to address.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 19, after "background", insert—
	', subject to the proviso that such consideration shall be secondary to the matters to be considered in subsections (2) and (3).'.—[Mr. Brazier.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived.

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 2, line 27, leave out from first "order" to end of line 28 and insert—
	'(or the revocation of such an order), a placement order (or the revocation of such an order) or an order under section 25 (or the revocation or variation of such an order)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 164.
	Amendment No. 108, in clause 17, page 12, line 19, leave out "section 18 or".
	Government amendments Nos. 166 to 169.
	Amendment No. 109, in clause 18, page 13, line 1, leave out clause 18.
	Government amendment No. 170.
	Amendment No. 110, in clause 19, page 13, line 23, leave out from "the" to "may" in line 24 and insert—
	'making of a placement order under section 20'.
	Government amendments Nos. 111, 172 and 173.
	Amendment No. 112, in clause 20, page 14, line 8, at end insert—
	'or
	(c) each parent or guardian consents to the making of the order.'.
	Amendment No. 113, in page 14, line 9, after "order", insert—
	'under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2)'.
	Amendment No. 114, in page 14, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment No. 20, in page 14, line 17, leave out "section 23" and insert—
	'sections 23 and 34(1) and (2)'.
	Amendment No. 308, in page 14, line 17, after "23," insert "or 34(1) or (2)".
	Government amendment No. 174.
	Amendment No. 21, in clause 21, page 14, line 29, at end insert—
	'or—
	(e) the child has been returned to them due to the circumstances of section 34(1) and (2).'.
	Amendment No. 309, in page 14, line 29, at end insert—
	'(1A) A local authority must apply to the Court for a new placement order when a child has returned to them due to the circumstances described in section 34(1) or (2).'.
	Government amendments Nos. 290, 175 and 176.
	Amendment No. 116, in clause 23, page 15, line 33, leave out—
	'each of the following conditions'
	and insert "the following condition".
	Government amendment No. 177.
	Amendment No. 115, in page 15, line 36, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
	Government amendments Nos. 178 and 179.
	Amendment No. 117, in clause 24, page 16, line 5, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment No. 119, in clause 25, page 16, line 14, leave out clause 25.
	Government amendment No. 291.
	Amendment No. 118, in clause 28, page 18, line 5, leave out clause 28.
	Government amendments Nos. 191 to 193.
	Amendment No. 123, in clause 29, page 18, line 20, leave out from "is" to "a" in line 21 and insert—
	'subject to a placement order'.
	Amendment No. 128, in page 18, line 21, leave out "the prospective adopters" and insert—
	'any placement made by the adoption agency.'.
	Government amendment No. 195.
	Amendment No. 124, in page 18, line 31, leave out subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).
	Government amendment No. 196.
	Amendment No. 125, in clause 30, page 19, line 10, leave out clause 30.
	Government amendments Nos. 198 to 201.
	Amendment No. 126, in clause 31, page 19, line 30, leave out clause 31.
	Government amendments Nos. 202 to 206.
	Amendment No. 127, in clause 33, page 20, line 29, leave out clause 33.
	Amendment No. 134, in clause 34, page 21, line 26, at end insert—
	'( ) Where the actions described in subsections (1) or (2) are taken, any placement order in place at that time shall be revoked.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 207 to 210, 250, 251, 220 and 230.

Jacqui Smith: This large group of amendments deals with some of the Bill's most important provisions: clause 1 and the process for placement for adoption, which is set out in the initial clauses of chapter 3. It is worth emphasising that there are so many amendments not only because we are considering an important part of the Bill but because, given the Government's consultative approach through a Special Standing Committee, it was appropriate to respond through Government amendments to some of the anxieties that hon. Members and stakeholders raised.
	I shall speak briefly to Government amendments Nos. 163 and 164. Government amendment No. 163 clarifies the important phrase
	"coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child",
	which triggers the obligations on courts and adoption agencies that are set out in the provision. That also covers orders under clause 25 for contact while the child is placed, or the revocation or variation of those orders. Amendment No. 164 clarifies the position on consideration of the decision to dispense with parental consent. It makes it completely clear that the decisions on dispensing with consent should be governed by clause 50(1). Paragraph (b) provides for dispensing with consent if
	"the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with."
	That is a strong requirement.
	It is worth reminding hon. Members that the aim of the placement system is to try to resolve the substantive issues that relate to parental consent to adoption earlier in the process. That will provide greater certainty and stability for children by dealing as far as possible with the bulk of issues before they are placed. It will reduce the extent to which birth families are faced with a fait accompli at the final adoption hearing, and try to reduce the uncertainty for prospective adopters who currently have to confront the possibility of a contested court hearing.
	Chapter 3 provides two routes for placement for adoption: placement by parental consent under clause 18, and placement through a placement order under clauses 20 and 21. The second route is available only to local authorities. Some of the amendments try to remove placement by consent to ensure a court hearing in every case. Although I understand some of the anxieties behind the proposals, it is nevertheless wrong or unnecessary for reasons that I shall outline. First, the Bill ensures that there are considerable safeguards around parental consent. They include providing for the consent to be witnessed, taken by a CAFCASS officer and reported to the court. There is, therefore, court consideration of the nature of the consent.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend rightly says that there has been some concern about these provisions. Does she understand that that is not least because once a person—a mother—makes the decision and crosses the line of consent, there is no going back, even if the circumstances where the child is placed change? For example, if the couple with whom the child is placed split up, the child's circumstances will become very different from those that pertained when the mother gave consent. Does my hon. Friend agree that requiring leave of the court would at least give confidence to people providing consent?

Jacqui Smith: I do not accept my hon. Friend's view that there is no going back. In fact, it is important to stress that placement by consent is intended to be entirely voluntary. If the parents withdraw their consent before the final adoption order application is made, the child must be returned to them unless the local authority is under a duty to apply for a placement order. We have listened to the concerns about the removal provisions, in particular those relating to reducing the time limit for returning a child to a parent who has removed consent if that child is not placed, from 14 days to seven.

Hilton Dawson: I accept all that my hon. Friend is saying about the way in which the Government have listened to the important issues that have been raised on this complex and difficult part of the Bill. Does she accept that a huge range of children's organisations, as well as Labour Back Benchers, are still extremely concerned about these issues? There will obviously not be time to discuss them today, but will she please ensure that her officials and colleagues in the other place are open to further discussion on this important aspect of this important Bill?

Jacqui Smith: Of course we have to continue to talk about these provisions. My officials have met—and undoubtedly will meet—people to talk about their concerns. I think it would be worth my while to spell out the changes that we have already made in response to those concerns. I have already talked about the removal provisions. We shall also ensure that local authorities apply for placement orders within the time limit rather than simply saying that they have a duty to do so. On revocation, we have recognised that the one-year test was too rigid, and we have reduced it.
	I have to say to my hon. Friend, and to those who believe that placements should be made only through the court system, that one of the Government's major concerns is the practical issue of whether that would increase the number of court cases. We do not believe, given the safeguards that are in place, that that provision would be necessary. To give people some idea of the scale involved, 16 per cent. of children adopted out of care are currently adopted with consent. If the Government meet their targets, that could necessitate up to 600 extra court cases if we insisted that placement could be made only through the court system.

Julian Brazier: I thank the Minister for giving way. We have no time at all to debate this important group of amendments. Does she accept that under the current provision, with the Government's amendments, a child could in theory be placed with families over and over again following disruptions prior to an adoption order, without any court overview or input of any kind from an independent representative for the child, such as a guardian ad litem?

Jacqui Smith: I will come to that issue in a moment. I want to emphasise our concern about introducing the courts into the situation when we all believe that we need to bear down on delay.

Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jacqui Smith: No, I will not. I want to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). Conservative Members were concerned in their amendments about ensuring that placement orders were more specific. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's contention that we need to move away from the general placement order, which has received widespread support in consultations, to what I suspect he is suggesting—namely, the necessity to return to court every time a placement breaks down. That proposal does not recognise that a placement order is about determining whether placement for adoption is right for that child, rather than determining a particular placement. It would also ensure that delay would be brought into the system—the hon. Gentleman earlier rightly urged us to bear down on delay—because, by necessity, if a placement unfortunately broke down, instead of a local authority being able to place the child in another placement, it would have to return to court—
	It being 3.45 pm, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Order [this day] to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 164, in page 2, line 38, leave out paragraph (c).—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 17
	 — 
	Placement for adoption by agencies

Amendments made: No. 165, in page 12, line 19, leave out "only" and insert—
	'except in the case of a child who is less than six weeks old, may only do so'.
	No. 166, in page 12, line 20, after "is" insert "placed or".
	No. 167, in page 12, line 21, leave out "to be treated as".
	No. 168, in page 12, line 21, leave out from second "authority" to end of line 22.
	No. 169, in page 12, line 36, at end insert—
	'( ) References in this Chapter to an adoption agency being, or not being, authorised to place a child for adoption are to the agency being or (as the case may be) not being authorised to do so under section 18 or a placement order'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 18
	 — 
	Placing children with parental consent

Amendment made: No. 170, in page 13, line 16, at end insert—
	'or
	( ) a care order or placement order has been made after the consent was given'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 19
	 — 
	Advance consent to adoption

Amendment made: No. 111, in page 13, line 35, leave out "wishes" and insert "does not wish".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 20
	 — 
	Placement orders

Amendments made: No. 172, in page 14, line 6, leave out "or".
	No. 173, in page 14, line 8, at end insert—
	'or
	( ) the child has no parent or guardian'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 21
	 — 
	Applications for placement orders

Amendments made: No. 174, in page 14, line 27, at beginning insert—
	'the child has no parent or guardian or'.
	No. 290, in page 15, line 3, leave out "to be treated as".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 23
	 — 
	Revoking placement orders

Amendments made: No. 175, in page 15, line 32, after "than" insert "the child or".
	No. 176, in page 15, line 33, leave out from "unless" to end of line 34.
	No. 177, in page 15, line 35, at end insert "and".
	No. 178, in page 15, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 179, in page 15, line 40, at end insert—
	'( ) If the court determines, on an application for an adoption order, not to make the order, it may revoke any placement order in respect of the child'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 25
	 — 
	Contact

Amendments made: No. 180, in page 16, line 15, after second "adoption" insert—
	'or placing a child for adoption who is less than six weeks old'.
	No. 181, in page 16, line 17, at end insert—
	'or a child who has been placed for adoption is less than six weeks old'.
	No. 182, in page 16, line 20, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	'(b) the court may make an order under this section requiring the person with whom the child lives, or is to live, to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order, or for the person named in the order and the child otherwise to have contact with each other'.
	No. 183, in page 16, line 22, leave out "The application" and insert—
	'An application for an order under this section'.
	No. 184, in page 16, line 32, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
	No. 185, in page 16, line 42, leave out from "section" to end of line 43.
	No. 186, in page 16, line 43, at end insert—
	'( ) This section does not prevent an application for a contact order under section 8 of the 1989 Act being made where the application is to be heard together with an application for an adoption order in respect of the child'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 26
	 — 
	Contact: supplementary

Amendments made: No. 187, in page 17, line 7, after "adoption" insert—
	'or the child is less than six weeks old'.
	No. 188, in page 17, line 25, leave out "affording" and insert "allowing".
	No. 189, in page 17, line 28, leave out "affording" and insert "allowing".
	No. 190, in page 17, line 31, leave out "that section" insert "section 25".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 27
	 — 
	Further consequences of placement

Amendment made: No. 291, in page 17, line 36, at end insert—
	'unless an application for an adoption order has been made and the parent or guardian has obtained the court's leave under subsection (3) or (5) of section 45,
	(b) if an application has been made for an adoption order, a guardian of the child may not apply for a special guardianship order unless he has obtained the court's leave under subsection (3) or (5) of that section.'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 28
	 — 
	Further consequences of placement orders

Amendments made: No. 191, in page 18, line 15, after "no" insert "prohibited steps order".
	No. 192, in page 18, line 15, after "order" insert "or specific issue order".
	No. 193, in page 18, line 17, at end insert—
	'( ) Subsection (3)(a) does not apply in respect of a residence order if—
	(a) an application for an adoption order has been made in respect of the child, and
	(b) the residence order is applied for by a parent or guardian who has obtained the court's leave under subsection (3) or (5) of section 45 or by any other person who has obtained the court's leave under this subsection'.
	No. 292, in page 18, line 17, at end insert—
	'(3B) Where a placement order is in force, no special guardianship order may be made in respect of the child unless—
	(a) an application has been made for an adoption order, and
	(b) the person applying for the special guardianship order has obtained the court's leave under this subsection or, if he is a guardian of the child, has obtained the court's leave under section 45(5).
	(3C) Section 14A(7) of the 1989 Act applies in respect of an application for a special guardianship order for which leave has been given as mentioned in subsection (3B)(b) with the omission of the words "the beginning of the period of three months ending with".
	(3D) Where a placement order is in force—
	(a) section 14C(1)(b) of the 1989 Act (special guardianship: parental responsibility) has effect subject to any determination under section 24(4) of this Act,
	(b) section 14C(3) and (4) of the 1989 Act (special guardianship: removal of child from UK etc.) does not apply.'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 29
	 — 
	General prohibitions on removal

Amendments made: No. 194, in page 18, line 20, at end insert—
	'or—
	( ) a child who has been placed for adoption by an adoption agency is less than six weeks old'.
	No. 195, in page 18, line 26, leave out from "authority" to "have" in line 27.
	No. 196, in page 18, line 39, at end insert—
	'but those sections do not apply if the child is subject to a care order'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 30
	 — 
	Section 29: recovery by parent etc. where child not yet placed

Amendments made: No. 197, in page 19, line 16, at end insert—
	'or a child who has been placed for adoption is less than six weeks old'.
	No. 198, in page 19, line 19, leave out from "him" to end of line 22.
	No. 199, in page 19, line 23, leave out "14" and insert "seven".
	No. 200, in page 19, line 24, at end insert—
	'unless an application is, or has been, made for a placement order and the application has not been disposed of'.
	No. 201, in page 19, line 25, leave out subsection (3).—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 31
	 — 
	Section 29: recovery by parent etc. where agency not opposed

Amendments made: No. 202, in page 19, line 32, at end insert "and".
	No. 203, in page 19, line 33, leave out from "withdrawn" to end of line 35 and insert—
	'unless an application is, or has been, made for a placement order and the application has not been disposed of'.
	No. 204, in page 20, line 5, after "order)" insert "special guardianship order".
	No. 205, in page 20, line 6, after "a" insert "special guardianship order or".
	No. 206, in page 20, line 9, after "a" insert "special guardianship order or".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 34
	 — 
	Return of child in other cases

Amendments made: No. 207, in page 21, line 38, after "order)" insert "special guardianship order".
	No. 208, in page 21, line 39, after "a" insert "special guardianship order or".
	No. 209, in page 21, line 42, after "a" insert "special guardianship order or".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 40
	 — 
	Recovery orders

Amendments made: No. 210, in page 24, line 16, at end insert—
	'or
	( ) that a person has failed to comply with section 31(2), 32(2), 33(3) or 34(2)'.
	No. 250, in page 25, line 5, leave out from "1911" to "(false" in line 6.
	No. 251, in page 25, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 41
	 — 
	Child to live with adopters before application

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 211, in page 25, line 25, after "Court" insert "or
	( ) the applicant is a parent of the child'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 212 to 218.

Jacqui Smith: I feel a bit like the warm-up act in relation to this group of amendments, so I hope that I will be able to warm people up and get on with it.
	These amendments clarify clause 41, which sets out the period that a child has to live with a prospective adopter before an application may be made for an adoption order. They also make minor modifications to the provision in clause 43 that covers the process of giving notice to local authorities in non-agency adoptions.
	In the case of the changes to clause 41, amendment No. 211 corrects an omission in the Bill as currently drafted, by providing that in the rare cases in which a natural parent is applying to adopt their own child, the residence period required will be the same as that for agency-approved adopters, as it is under the Adoption Act 1976.
	Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 improve the wording of subsection (3), which relates to step-parent applications. They make it clear that, when a step-parent is applying to adopt a child jointly with the natural parent, the six-month residence period for step-parent applications is still to apply, as it does for single step-parent applications.
	Amendments Nos. 215 to 218 concern the process of non-agency adoptions. When an adoption is not happening through an adoption agency, the adoptive applicant has to give notice to the local authority in which he has his home, so that the local authority can investigate and report to the court—an important safeguard for children in cases where an adoption agency has not been involved in selecting and matching the adopters for the child.
	These amendments allow for cases in which an applicant fulfils the domicile requirements in clause 47, but does not in law currently have his home in a local authority area. It might be helpful to hon. Members if I explain that this problem was brought to our attention by the Ministry of Defence, because it relates to members of the armed services or, for example, to diplomats temporarily stationed abroad. Obviously, we would not want to block such individuals from adopting under British law simply on these grounds. The amendments would allow us in these cases to prescribe, in regulations, which should be the appropriate local authority in cases where the applicant did not currently have his home in the UK.
	In addition, Government amendment No. 215 makes it clear that, although the report to the court and the investigation are the responsibility of the local authority, it could arrange for elements of them to be carried out by other suitable organisations. For example, in the case of step-parent adoption applications by service families stationed overseas, we would envisage that the Service Families Adoption Agency—a registered voluntary adoption agency—would conduct the investigation and visit the family, as required by clause 41(7), and pass the results to the relevant local authority. If the authority were satisfied, it would then submit the report to the court.
	In conclusion, these amendments clarify the provisions in relation to clause 41, and ensure that an unsatisfactory situation relating particularly to our forces stationed overseas has been satisfactorily sorted out.

Tim Loughton: For fear of becoming a subsidiary to the warm-up act and being booed off the stage, I do not intend to go into any detail. In any event, we were notified of this raft of amendments late in the day.
	It is difficult to see anything contentious in the amendments. I am especially pleased that the Minister has taken account of the special position of diplomats and members of the armed forces, which we raised in Committee in regard to other provisions. I hope that it will be taken into account in other parts of the Bill, but for now we have no reason to challenge the amendments. No doubt Members will wish to proceed to the next group.
	Amendment agreed to.

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 310, in page 25, line 27, leave out "married".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 311, in page 25, line 36, leave out "married".
	Amendment No. 312, in page 25, line 43, leave out "married".
	Amendment No. 148, in clause 47, page 28, line 41, leave out "married".
	Amendment No. 10, in page 28, line 41, leave out from "couple", to end of line 42 and insert—
	'(b) an unmarried couple, or
	(c) one person,'.
	Amendment No. 18, in page 28, line 41, leave out "or".
	Amendment No. 14, in page 28, line 42, after "person", insert—
	', or
	(c) an unmarried couple.'.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 28, line 43, leave out "or 49" and insert—
	'49 or [Adoption by unmarried couples]'.
	Amendment No. 15, in page 28, line 43, leave out "or 49" and insert—
	'49 or [Adoption orders unmarried couples]'.
	Amendment No. 149, in page 29, line 1, leave out "spouses" and insert "couple".
	Amendment No. 16, in page 29, line 2, after "section 48)", insert—
	'or one member of the unmarried couple (in the case of an application under section [Adoption orders: unmarried couples]).'.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 29, line 2, after "48)", insert—
	'or one member of the unmarried couple (in the case of an application under section [Adoption by unmarried couples])'.
	Amendment No. 150, in page 29, line 4, leave out "spouses" and insert "of the couple".
	Amendment No. 13, in page 29, line 5, after "48)", insert—
	'or both applicants (in the case of an application under section [Adoption by unmarried couples])'.
	Amendment No. 17, in page 29, line 5, after "48", insert—
	'or both applicants (in the case of an application under section [Adoption orders: unmarried couples]).'.
	Amendment No. 24, in page 29, line 13, at end insert—
	'(6) References in this Act to an unmarried couple will apply only to a man and a woman living together.'.
	Amendment No. 151, in clause 48, page 29, line 15, leave out "married".
	Amendment No. 152, in page 29, line 16, leave out "spouses" and insert "of them".
	Amendment No. 153, in page 29, line 17, leave out "married".
	Amendment No. 154, in page 29, line 19, leave out "spouse" and insert "of the couple".
	Amendment No. 155, in page 29, line 21, leave out "spouse".
	Amendment No. 156, in clause 49, page 29, line 24, at end insert—
	'(1A) An adoption order may be made on the application of one person who has attained the age of 21 years if the court is satisfied that the person is the partner of a parent of the person to be adopted'.
	Amendment No. 157, in page 29, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).
	New clause 2—Adoption by unmarried couples—
	'(1) An adoption order may not be granted on the application of an unmarried couple unless the court is satisfied—
	(a) that both of the applicants are over the age of twenty–one;
	(b) for the period of 2 years ending with the date of the application, the partners have lived in the same household (otherwise than merely by reason of one of them being the other's employee, tenant, lodger or boarder); and
	(c) that the applicants are not close relatives of each other.
	(2) "Close relative", in relation to any person, means his grandparents, parents, children, step–children, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, brothers and sisters and step–brothers and step–sisters.
	(3) In relation to any application made under this section, the court may take into consideration the arrangements which the applicants have made, or intend to make in order to safeguard the welfare of the child involved, should their relationship break down.'.
	New clause 3—Adoption orders: unmarried couples—
	'(1) An adoption order may be made on the application of an unmarried couple where both members of the couple have attained the age of 21 years.
	(2) An adoption order may be made on the application by an unmarried couple if the court is satisfied
	(a) that they have been living together for at least two years at time of application,
	(b) that the relationship between the couple is stable and is intended by each of them to be permanent, and
	(c) that the unmarried couple has made arrangements to safeguard the financial and practical security of the child in the event of the ending of their relationship and to meet their joint and individual parental responsibilities.'.
	New clause 13—Suitability of adopters—
	'(1) Regulations under section 9 may make provision as to the matters to be taken into account by an adoption agency in determining, or making any report in respect of, the suitability of any persons to adopt a child.
	(2) In particular, the regulations may make provision for the purpose of securing that, in determining the suitability of a couple to adopt a child, proper regard is had to the need for stability and permanence in their relationship'.
	Amendment No. 158, in clause 131, page 74, line 51, at end insert—
	'(2B) In this Act, a couple means—
	(a) a married couple, or
	(b) two people (whether of different sexes or the same sex) living as partners in an enduring family relationship.
	(2C) Subsection (2B)(b) does not include two people one of whom is the other's parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle.
	(2D) References to relationships in subsection (2C)—
	(a) are to relationships of the full blood or half blood or, in the case of an adopted person, such of those relationships as would exist but for the adoption, and
	(b) include the relationship of a child with his adoptive, or former adoptive, parents,
	but do not include any other adoptive relationships.
	(2E) For the purposes of this Act, a person is the partner of a child's parent if the person and the parent are a couple but the person is not the child's parent'.
	Amendment (a) to the amendment, in (2B)(a), leave out—
	'whether of different sexes or the same sex'
	and insert "of different sexes".

Evan Harris: This is an important group of amendments, which if passed could bring hope to thousands of children—hope of a happier life than that provided by serial foster-parenting, notwithstanding the efforts of hard-working, excellent, commendable foster parents; and hope of a happier life than years of childhood spent in residential care. The amendments could give those thousands of children hope of adoption, and of living in suitable homes with loving families.
	The amendments are about putting the welfare of children first. They are about looking at the advice offered to us by adoption agencies, children's charities, local authorities and professionals. All those people and organisations urge us to support the amendments, which are about accepting research evidence and having an evidence-based approach—having a rational rather than an irrational basis for adoption policy.
	Children, after all, must grow up in the real world. They must grow up in the 21st century, in which, whether we like it or not, 40 per cent. of children are born outside marriage, and in which many people who are committed to each other choose not to marry. That applies to 15 per cent. of households, and the figure is expected to rise to 30 per cent. In this real world, loving stable families—in the Minister's memorable words—come in all shapes and sizes. Indeed, dysfunctional families come in all shapes and sizes, including the so-called orthodox. Children do not grow up in an idealised world that never was, but that some Members who are present may wish existed.
	Currently, and according to the unamended Bill, the only people allowed to apply to adopt are married couples or single people. Adoption agencies assess the suitability of applicants, and write a report for the courts that will decide whether the adoptions should proceed. Unmarried couples cannot apply to adopt as couples; single people can apply even if they are part of a couple, but they must apply as single people.
	The arrangement has two impacts. First, unmarried couples cannot currently adopt as co-parents, even if they have their own non-adopted children and are both parents to them. Only one can be a parent, while the other can at best obtain secondary status, which will be recognised only until the child reaches the age of 16 or 18. That in itself has two consequences. The parents are legally unequal, one being second class, which is not in the child's best interests; and some potential adopters are deterred from applying because they cannot do so as a couple. That leaves children in residential care, or in serial foster care, rather than with suitable adoptive families. It does not make the child's interests paramount.
	A higher proportion of unmarried couples than married couples may think of adopting. We hear that about 10 per cent. of potential applicants are unmarried couples who may be put off by the fact that they cannot adopt on an equal basis.

Patrick Cormack: If a couple are desperate to have a child and if there is no impediment to marriage, they have an easy answer. If there is an impediment to marriage, there is a real ground for their not being allowed to adopt as a couple.

Evan Harris: I disagree. The hon. Gentleman must know that in the case of such applications adoption agencies write reports on the circumstances, which the courts take into account. If he is saying, as he appears to be, that no unmarried couples are suitable to adopt as couples—if he is saying that a priori—I do not think he is making the child's best interests paramount. He is putting his own preferences first, and I feel it is incumbent on us all not to do that.

Peter Lilley: The hon. Gentleman said he wanted an evidenced-based approach, and that there was evidence that the present legal status deterred unmarried couples from adopting. What is that evidence? It is referred to in a letter from the British Agencies for Adopting and Fostering. When I asked the BAAF what the evidence was, it said that actually it had none.

Evan Harris: It certainly does have evidence. I believe the evidence was gathered during national adoption week, when the BAAF recorded the reasons why people who had thought about adopting were put off. I do not want to take up the House's time, because I am sure others with expertise will deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point, but there is no doubt that many unmarried couples would like to adopt as couples, but the Bill, if unamended, will put them off.

Meg Munn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we only see adoption legislation approximately every 25 years? Is it not important, therefore, for legislation we introduce to take account of the next generation? Given the change in society, is it not sensible to make our own change now?

Evan Harris: Absolutely.
	The second impact of the current position and, indeed, the unamended Bill is that although gay men and lesbians are already able to adopt, and do adopt, they cannot do so as couples. In that sense, the debate on the extension of joint adoption rights to unmarried couples has veered off its original course. Gay adoption per se is not at stake here, although people want it to be. The sexuality of an applicant in itself in no way bars him or her from the right to adopt under current law, as a single person.
	There are three reasons for seeking a change in the law. First, it is not in a child's best interests, when members of a couple play equal parts in his or her life, for only one member to have full legal responsibility. The other parent is downgraded to second-class status, without the power to make vital as well as casual decisions in the child's life that call for legal guardian status. Problems are also caused when the adopter is ill or dies, as no legal relationship is left between the child and the other parent. Especially given that any residency orders are valid only until the child is 16 or l8, depending on the circumstances, that does not make the child's best interests paramount throughout his or her life.
	Secondly, as I have said, many suitable unmarried couples are deterred from applying to adopt. That clearly is not in the best interests of tens of thousands of children in serial foster care, or in care waiting for suitable adoptive families.
	Thirdly, the current law clearly discriminates against unmarried and same-sex couples. Given the stringent application process for adoption and the rigorous assessments that are made on a case-by-case basis, there is no justification for disqualifying a couple from adopting jointly simply because they do not possess a marriage certificate, if they clearly possess all the characteristics that the agencies would otherwise expect from suitable adoptive parents.

Gary Streeter: Is it not in the best interests of the child to have a mother and a father whenever that is possible?

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman may think that in an ideal situation it is in children's best interests to have mothers and fathers who are very wealthy, who have nannies and both of whom have jobs. Children today do not grow up in an ideal world. The hon. Gentleman must decide whether he thinks it better for children to be left in care, or suffer the problems that clearly result from serial foster care, than for them to be accepted into the loving stable environment provided by an unmarried couple, if that is what is on offer.

Jonathan R Shaw: Certainly the most desirable adoptive arrangement is for the child to have a mother and a father who are married, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that in other circumstances it may well be in the child's best interests to be adopted according to other arrangements?

Evan Harris: Each child's circumstances are different, and it is not necessary to accept the hon. Gentleman's point of view to recognise that we have to find the best solution in each individual case. I am not willing to condemn unmarried couples who have their own children—I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is, either—and if we take the view that married parents are the ideal, we attack the many thousands of our constituents who choose not to get married for perfectly valid reasons, or cannot do so. Hon. Members can put their views—

Jonathan Djanogly: rose—

Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Evan Harris: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance once I have made more progress.
	What is at stake is making it possible for an unmarried couple to adopt jointly, so that they can both have a legal relationship with the child. It is about recognising the changing structure of social relations, and ensuring that we offer children currently in care the best opportunity of finding a home by allowing unmarried couples to consider adoption in a manner that does not downgrade their relationship. It is also about taking a stance against, and putting an end to, discrimination in whatever form.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman talks about recognising changes in social trends. Does he acknowledge that in 2000 the number of marriages in fact increased for the first time in eight years? For the avoidance of doubt about the Liberal Democrats' position, can he clarify matters by saying whether or not he thinks the best possible arrangement is for children to be brought up by a married couple consisting of a man and a woman? Advancing that argument does not diminish the alternatives; it merely states that, where available, that is the best possible scenario. Does he deny that?

Evan Harris: This is a pointless debate, and the hon. Gentleman's position is illogical. He cannot raise one group of people to a higher status without implying that another group are of a lower status. If he asked his questions honestly, he would be more likely to find answers to them, but first he must recognise the reality of the proposition that he puts.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Evan Harris: I am keen to make progress as I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak.
	I should point out that there are many justifications for recognising that unmarried couples are suitable for adoption purposes. The argument will be advanced that they are inherently more unstable, but it is based on poor research that does not compare like with like. Other types of partnerships who wish to adopt often last longer than many marriages. A generalising, simplistic analysis of figures that do not even compare like with like across socio-economic groups does the debate a disservice. If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) argues that case later, I shall seek to intervene on her.
	I also question the view that children placed into same-sex partnerships that are otherwise suitable to adopt are damaged in any way. Evidence produced by Professor Golombok, and the review conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, makes it clear they suffer no short-term or long-term damage, and do very well in such partnerships. Again, I shall seek to intervene on anyone who tries to argue against that evidence.
	Liberal Democrats are proud to work with like-minded members of other parties to introduce this measure. In our manifesto—

Hilton Dawson: I may be wrong, but I think this is the first major contribution to the Bill that the hon. Gentleman has made. In the interests of the consensus that he apparently seeks, would he not have done better to align himself much more clearly and solely with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who has a solid background in children's issues?

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman will find that I alone among Front Benchers raised this issue on Second Reading; indeed, it was amazing that so little other discussion took place of such an important issue. He will know that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I was not.

Tim Loughton: Why was the hon. Gentleman not on the Committee?

Evan Harris: I was considering another Bill in Standing Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman inspects the record, he will find that I have contributed to such debates more frequently than he has.
	Given that I am being provoked, I should point out that we had the courage to call in our manifesto for reform of the fostering and adoption law. That lends legitimacy to my argument, so the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) should perhaps question his attack. The manifesto placed emphasis on the suitability of potential adopters and on the needs of the child, rather than on arbitrary rules that are set centrally. We also called for the registration of civil partnerships to be based in part on the legal effects and duties of marriage, including adoption and fostering. The hon. Gentleman cannot claim, therefore, that I am suddenly springing this view on the House. We have no compunction in calling for and supporting these amendments on a party Whip. In terms of the way in which hon. Members vote, it is through the party Whip that a party shares the accountability of its members.
	We know that some sections of the press will pillory us for the position that we take, but it is better to face that and argue the merits of it, rather than hiding behind shifting positions, prevarication and free votes. I am not surprised that the Conservative party has a three-line Whip against the liberalisation of such matters: it is not a liberal party. Conservatives put their prejudices and illiberal views before children's welfare and considerations of fairness.

Jonathan Djanogly: In different ways, the hon. Gentleman repeatedly refers to discrimination. Is he aware that the International Court of Human Rights recently ruled that preventing homosexual partners from adopting is not considered a breach of human rights?

Evan Harris: I know of the case to which the hon. Gentleman mis-refers—it was heard not in the International Court of Human Rights but the lower chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, the vote, which was four to three against the application, is being appealed, and the British judge was one of the three who voted in favour. The amendments that the hon. Gentleman is likely to support are not compatible, therefore, with human rights legislation—a point on which the Minister doubtless also has a view.
	The failure of the Labour Government to support the amendments is very disappointing, given their high opinion poll rating, their large majority and the admirable interest that the Prime Minister has shown in the matter. I pay tribute to the Minister, her ministerial colleagues, and the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for winning the battle for a free vote, at least. A battle it must have been, given that, on 25 January 1999, the former Home Secretary appeared to agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who said that his understanding was that there would be no legal adoption by homosexual couples. We can safely say, therefore, that there is no unanimity on this point among the senior ranks of the Government.

Meg Munn: Given that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned to make progress on this issue, will he withdraw his amendments? If accepted, they could create problems for the rest of the Bill in terms of consequential amendments. Will he instead support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)?

Evan Harris: That is a legitimate point, which I shall come to in a moment.
	We should applaud the Secretary of State for Health's personal support for these measures, but we look forward to a time when free votes are offered across the board on genuine points of principle or ethics, and when Governments accept accountability for children's welfare. [Interruption.] I have an important question for the Minister, in which hon. Members will have an interest. If this measure is adopted, what will happen when the Bill reaches the House of Lords and they reject it? Will the Minister give an undertaking now to send it back a second time. Those of us who will vote for these measures want to know that we are not doing so in vain. If necessary, will she use the Parliament Act to force through not just the Bill but the measure? It is important that the Minister replies. We know that, in the end, Governments must be responsible for getting Bills and measures through.
	In answer to the hon. Lady's question, like amendment No. 148, amendment No. 310 deletes the word "married". Amendment No. 158 defines "a couple" either as married, or as two people both over the age of 21 who are not closely related, and who live as partners in an enduring family relationship. We believe that that definition is effective, and that the amendments are good. The hon. Member for Wakefield will himself want to talk about his new clause 3, but I suspect he agrees that the wording of amendment No. 158 is superior to both previous such attempts. Therefore, I have no compunction in saying that I shall not press new clause 2 and its consequential amendments to a division. However, in a sense, amendments Nos. 310, 311, 312, 148 and 147 are all consequential on amendment No. 158—and vice versa—and there is no doubt that amendment No. 310 is necessary. If it is not agreed by the House today, the Government will have to introduce it in the House of Lords. I ask hon. Members why they intend to vote against amendment No. 310, because it is an inevitable part of the measures. That is my understanding from the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, which sent me a letter today stating:
	"BAAF's position is that we want to see the principle of unmarried couples being able to adopt jointly going through the House today."
	That is what amendment No. 310 would achieve. The BAAF continued:
	"We urge MPs to vote for any amendment which will have this effect—I am unclear which will be debated but the principle is what is important at this stage."
	Stonewall, which also has an interest in the issue, e-mailed me today to say:
	"Re: today's vote on the right of unmarried couples to apply to adopt, Stonewall very much hopes that this proposal will be supported today by MPs. I am happy to confirm that if Amendment 310 is put to the vote that we would like to support it, as it will carry with it support for the rest of the amendments associated with it—148-158—which we also support."
	I have had no notice from the Government about any technical problems—although I will listen to what the Minister has to say—but because we have a clear position on the issue, we would like to press amendment No. 310 to a division.
	Amendment No. 24 and amendment (a) are simply wrong. They are discriminatory and incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. They have no place in a modernisation of the law. I understand the sincere reasons of those who wish to press the matter—they want to feel that, even as Conservatives, they can support the general trend of the Bill—but it is unsuitable to victimise a sub-group and refuse to allow children the benefit of being adopted by that sub-group.

Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because my name appears on both the amendments that he has just mentioned. He has not yet satisfactorily answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) so I shall ask him again. Is it the position of the Liberal Democrats that they do not believe that the best environment in which to bring up a child is with a mother and a father?

Evan Harris: That is an academic argument, because each case is different. If there is a violent father in the household—it is usually fathers who are violent—it is not a suitable environment. Unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that those of his constituents who do not live together as married husband and wife are less worthy of his consideration, I am not prepared to go any further into what is a sterile debate.
	New clause 13 is important and will assume greater importance. It is the one change proposed by the hon. Member for Wakefield that I cannot support, because it would give new and unnecessary regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State. If hon. Members are serious about scrutinising the Government, they should look at the new clause carefully. General regulation- making powers exist in clause 9 already and could cover that area as they cover the functions of adoption agencies and local authorities, including writing reports for courts. Clause 1 already provides that agencies and the courts must have paramount regard to the welfare of the child throughout his life. In addition, statutory guidance already exists on the issue, and adoption agencies can provide further guidance. The additional regulatory powers are unnecessary. Moreover, we have not seen the powers, so we could be voting for restrictive secondary legislation based on measures in the Bill. The Minister might even admit that that is exactly the point of new clause 13. If the Government wanted powers in that area, they should have published the regulations before today, which is the last opportunity that the House has to see what it is being asked to accept.
	The amendments are about putting the welfare of children before old-fashioned views of the world as we would like it be rather than as it is. They are about putting fair treatment before unnecessary discrimination, and putting the best interests of children—making their welfare paramount—before prejudice. I urge the House to support the amendments.

David Hinchliffe: I shall speak to amendment No. 148, amendments Nos.149 to 158, which accompany it, and new clause 13. I shall not press the other amendments that stand in my name. I hope that if the debate is interrupted by the knife at 6 o'clock, we will have a separate division on amendment No. 148—and, if necessary, on the other amendments that go with it.
	I am pleased to be able to contribute to a debate on this important and welcome Bill, which is long overdue. However, I have been astonished by some of the media coverage of the purpose of the amendments that I have tabled and the changes I have proposed to the Bill. The coverage in the media in the past few days has ranged from grossly inaccurate to frankly outrageous. It has been suggested that the motive behind my amendments is political correctness. I have been told by close friends among hon. Members that I am one of the most politically incorrect Members, so it is an unusual experience for me to be accused of political correctness.
	I have read the article by Melanie Phillips in Monday's Daily Mail that suggested that the amendments were a deliberate attempt to destroy marriage. It states:
	"Ranged behind the BAAF are the Government"—
	which does not include me—
	"and the moral bankrupts of the intellectual and political establishment",
	which presumably does include me. That is the first time I have been accused of being an intellectual.

Jonathan R Shaw: What about being morally bankrupt?

David Hinchliffe: I shall not respond to that intervention. The article continues:
	"the interests of vulnerable children are just about the last thing under consideration here . . . It is the latest salvo in the relentless and illiberal campaign to destroy marriage as the fundamental reference point for family life and to give cohabitation equivalent status."
	That paper is read by many people, and the letters and telephone calls that I have received show that one or two people are daft enough to believe that nonsense.
	I wish to make my personal position clear. My concern is not to undermine marriage. I have a deeply held personal belief in marriage. I am married, and one of my great regrets is the extent of marriage breakdown and family breakdown that I have witnessed in our society. I also regret the failure of society to emphasise sufficiently the importance of marriage and the family in contributing to a decent, civilised and stable society. However, I was encouraged to hear from a Conservative Front Bencher that the number of marriages is going up under Labour. Perhaps we are moving in the right direction.
	I have one simple concern and motivation in tabling the amendments, and that is the interests of the vulnerable children to whom Melanie Phillips refers in her article. Some hon. Members may be aware of my background, which is that before becoming an MP I spent nearly 20 years in local authority social work. I often worked on the approval of adoption applicants, which is a very skilled process. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work of the agencies and individuals involved in a difficult, challenging and important task. I spent many years working as a guardian ad litem on behalf of the courts. The guardian ad litem protects the specific interests of a child who is being placed for adoption. I was also, for several years, a member of the adoption panel for the Wakefield local authority that approved placements for adoption. By and large, it did so very successfully.
	I come to the matter from the point of view of someone who knows about the situation of adoptive applicants. I know about the circumstances facing many children who could be adopted, and how their best interests might be served by a change in the law.
	I entered the House in 1987. With my background, it was a privilege to be invited to serve on the Standing Committee considering the Bill that became the Children Act 1989. I pay tribute to the Conservative Government on their introduction of that fine piece of legislation. It succeeded because at its heart lay what was called the welfare principle—that the best interests of the child should underpin any decision relating to that child's welfare.
	This Bill is a positive measure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State deserve great praise for being able to find time in a tight parliamentary timetable to put this long overdue provision on the statute book.
	The Bill reflects the personal concerns of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Some two years ago I had an interesting discussion with him, and he told me that his father had been in care. I had had no idea about that, but it is clear that my right hon. Friend has some insight into the concerns of children in that situation. He has initiated what I think is a long overdue and important change in the law.
	I also had the privilege, in the previous Parliament, to be Chairman of the Select Committee on Health when we conducted an inquiry into looked-after children. One of our recommendations was that there was a need to make much greater use of adoption. We also said that the law governing adoption should be reformed. That reform is contained in this Bill.
	The Bill enshrines the welfare principle—the principle on which the Children Act 1989 was founded—in adoption law, but it fails in one key area. Our debate on this group of amendments is concerned with that area of failure—the fact that the Bill does not allow unmarried couples to adopt, even if a child's best interests would best be served by that. The amendments and new clauses in this group are designed to change that.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that the problem exists, and I also welcome their willingness to listen. I strongly commend their decision to allow a free vote on the matter. It is exactly the sort of issue that should be left to personal conscience. Many Labour Members to whom I have spoken disagree with me on this matter, and many agree. I have talked to Conservative Members about the matter, and some of them would like to go most of the way with what I am trying to achieve. I presume, however, that they are prevented from doing so by what I understand to be a three-line Whip.

Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the status quo is unacceptable? At present one member of an unmarried partnership can adopt, yet the other member is left out. Surely that cannot be a basis for a permanent, loving and caring relationship with two adult carers?

David Hinchliffe: That problem is at the heart of my concerns about the way in which the Bill is drafted. My hon. Friend is right: the law permits adoption by single people and joint adoption by married couples. The prohibition of joint adoption by unmarried couples is continued by clause 47. As drafted, the Bill requires that all decisions by the relevant agencies or courts must be based on the principle that the child's welfare, throughout its life, must be the paramount consideration. However, in a small number of cases the agency or court is prevented from making the decision that is most likely to promote the child's welfare. They may be few in number, but those cases are important, and that is why I think that the Bill needs to be amended.
	In practice, a small number of children—possibly as few as 1 per cent.—are placed for adoption with an unmarried couple. Alternatively, a child may be placed with its existing foster carers. There is no requirement that such carers be married, and they may wish to adopt the child. Sadly for the child, in those circumstances only one of the foster parents can in law become the adoptive parent. The other partner may acquire more limited parental responsibility for the child—for example, by being granted a residence order.
	However, such orders end automatically when a child is 16, or 18 at the latest. As a result, the adoptive parent's partner will have no lasting legal family relationship with the adopted child. We have to understand the implications of that. I shall not go into detail, but questions of inheritance, pensions, insurance, and in certain circumstances even nationality, need to be considered.
	Most importantly to my mind, the present arrangements also affect the child's ability to have an equal relationship with both adoptive parents. That is why I propose that unmarried couples should be allowed to apply to adopt and to be approved, where suitable and where there is clear evidence of stability and permanence in their relationship.
	I emphasise those conditions, as I am concerned that we should be aware of the need for permanence in the relationship of any people applying to adopt. It is worth noting that the 1983 adoption regulations for reports to adoption panels and the 1984 adoption rules concerning reports to the courts require comments on the stability of a married couple's relationship.
	I know married couples who do not have an exactly stable relationship, so it is wrong to make the automatic assumption that people who are married have a stable relationship. Sadly, in my experience, that is not always the case.

Gordon Marsden: Does my hon. Friend agree with the editorial in The Times today? It commends his amendment, and states:
	"Any couple who can demonstrate financial commitment, enduring love and domestic stability should be free to adopt."

David Hinchliffe: I have not seen that editorial, but I agree with the sentiments.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) expressed concern about new clause 13. The regulations and accompanying statutory guidance would require specific consideration of the duration and permanence of the relationship between the couple as part of the adopter assessment process. That is very important.

Nick Palmer: A constituent sent me an e-mail this morning, in which he stated that he accepted the need to open up the process to include stable unmarried couples. However, he wanted to be reassured that the process would not be opened up to unstable couples. Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of a marriage would offer a certain amount of prime facie evidence for stability, other things being equal?

David Hinchliffe: Some of the most unstable people that I have met in my life have been married. Marriage does not necessarily indicate stability. However, regardless of whether we are talking about married or unmarried couples, the existence of a stable, enduring and loving relationship is crucial when it comes to adoptive applicants securing approval.

Meg Munn: Will not new clause 13 make it a requirement, for the first time, that the regulations should cover inquiries into suitability? It is clearly spelled out that adoptive applicants must have a relationship that is stable and permanent, and those conditions apply to married couples, single people and unmarried couples. That requirement has not existed in previous legislation covering adoption.

David Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to her for the long and hard work that she done on this measure. Her background is in social work, and she worked in my constituency some time ago.

Meg Munn: I was chair of the adoption panel.

David Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend therefore knows a bit about this subject, and I appreciate her expertise and commitment.
	I want to say something about the number of children who need adoption. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may have up-to-date figures on the number of children in care, but the organisation British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering has calculated that some 5,000 more adoptive families will be needed in the next year. It is worried that the Government's aim of increasing the number of children adopted from care by 40 per cent. by 2004 will need many more adoptive applicants than are evident at present.

Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the statement made in the media today by the director of BAAF, to the effect that the organisation can get no applicants at all to appear in its "Be My Parent" book who want to adopt boys of more than five or six years of age?

David Hinchliffe: The briefing sent by BAAF to Members refers to that point. It is worrying that many children do not have the opportunity of the loving family environment that all or most of us take for granted.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is giving a very good speech, although I do not necessarily agree with his conclusions. He is at least making the case for stability. It is true that six out of 10 cohabitations turn into marriage, but of those that do not, eight out of 10 break down within 10 years. Does he think that it is wise to place a child with a couple when there is a four in five chance of that relationship breaking down? Is that in the interests of the child?

David Hinchliffe: Sadly, many marriages break down within the same period. I worked with colleagues who were involved with adoptions, and sometimes the marriages broke down not long after the children were adopted, which deeply affected the children. I do not think that we can ever predict whether that will happen. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we cannot guarantee that married people will stay together.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference is that an unmarried couple seeking to adopt a child would be subject to a rigorous assessment, and would need to demonstrate stability? We are not comparing like with like, so the example given by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is not appropriate.

David Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend's background, like mine, is in social work. I suspect that many Opposition Members do not have the depth of knowledge that some Labour Members who have done the job have, about the extent to which such issues are examined. It occasionally results in social workers being accused of prying into issues that they should not investigate. This has to be a thorough process, and I think that the regulations that follow what I hope will be an amended Bill will be thorough on the subject of stability and security.

Martin Smyth: I agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. He said that more people needed to offer to become adoptive parents. Has he any figures to show how many people who seek to adopt and make no progress opt for out-of-country adoption? Are those figures recorded with our lists of those waiting for adoption?

David Hinchliffe: I do not have those figures; the Minister may be able to offer some advice on the subject. I have deep reservations about out-of-country adoptions. I have a vivid memory of being in Romania 10 years ago in what was supposedly an orphanage. Many people from this country wanted to adopt Romanian orphans, but I found out that most of the kids surrounding me were not orphans but had families who were too poor to look after them. The message that came over loud and clear is that we need to support the countries where those youngsters come from and ensure that they can be fed and cared for by their own families. I do not have the figures but I am uneasy about the idea of inter-country adoptions without very strict regulations.

Gary Streeter: I respect the hon. Gentleman greatly for the work that he has done on this matter, although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I do not necessarily share his beliefs. He has done a terrific job, however, and is making a very good speech. Reference has been made to hard-to-adopt children, particularly boys of five, six and seven. What evidence does he have that if his amendment is passed into law, a queue of unmarried couples will want those hard-to-adopt children?

David Hinchliffe: I cannot give an answer on individual cases. However, I know that BAAF and other organisations have had significant inquiries from unmarried couples. The information sent to all right hon. and hon. Members shows that during national adoption week in 1999, 10 per cent. of the inquiries received came from people who were unmarried and were actively considering adoption.
	The figures discussed in Committee showing how many people cohabit rather than marry nowadays are worthy of note, too. I do not defend those figures—I have made my position clear—but the general household survey shows that in 2000, 11 per cent. of men and 12 per cent. of women between 16 and 59 were cohabiting, and 30 per cent. of women aged 18 to 49. I am told that according to the projections, in 20 years' time—no doubt this legislation will still apply then, because I suspect that, as has already been said, it will be 25 years before there is another Adoption Act, so we need to get it right—the figure for cohabiting couples will be 20 per cent., and may even be higher. Personally, I hope that marriage becomes fashionable—and under Labour, that may happen.
	I want to emphasise the need for the thorough assessment that already takes place with regard to stability and long-term relationships. I believe that that can be delivered by the amended Bill and by regulation.
	I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentlemen who put their names to amendment (a) to amendment No. 158. I worked with them on the Health Committee, and I know their deep commitment to child welfare. However, I urge the House to oppose amendment (a). Sadly, the media interest in this debate has focused on the red herring of same-sex adoptions. Frankly, such arrangements are not my central purpose, but I believe that it could be in the interests of a particular child to be adopted by a same-sex couple, so that should not be ruled out.
	I say that on the basis of the experience that I had in the late 1970s of approving, as de facto foster parents for a particular child, a lesbian couple. I had reservations and Leeds authority, which I worked for and which was in Conservative hands at the time, had very serious reservations. The decision on that placement went to the Conservative chair of the social services committee, and she agreed that the proposal was in the best interests of that child. The lady concerned is still around, and she will confirm what I say. I understand that the child was subsequently adopted by one of the women involved.
	I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to remember that we are here to deal with the best interests of the child, and those should be paramount in this debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are many right hon. and hon. Members trying to contribute to the debate in a very limited time. We have had two very substantial opening speeches, and I appeal for brevity from other right hon. and hon. Members.

Ann Widdecombe: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on a speech that was moderation and reason itself compared with the one that we heard from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I particularly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his support for marriage as an underlying principle. It is a sad day for British politics when a Front-Bench spokesman consistently refuses to say that the best thing that a child can have is a father and mother in a stable married context. That is a great pity, and for that reason alone, I wish that we were going to vote on the hon. Gentleman's amendment first. I do not agree with it and will not support it, but I congratulate him on the very serious way in which he has tackled a difficult subject. He has raised some challenging issues.

David Rendel: Does the right hon. Lady really believe that it is better for a child to be brought up in a stable relationship between a man and a woman who are constantly abusing that child than by a couple who are unmarried but who provide warmth, security and love for their children?

Ann Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman does not even measure up to an 11-plus standard of debate.
	I should like to address the very serious issues raised by the hon. Member for Wakefield. First and foremost, we should be seeking to give any child, but particularly an adoptive child who has already suffered considerable instability and may be very vulnerable, security and stability. It is only by maintaining the current law and by making it the norm that adoption is undertaken by married couples that security and stability can be achieved.

Hilton Dawson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Widdecombe: I want to make progress, as so many Members want to speak. You have asked for short contributions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be unable to make mine short if I give way—I say that with respect, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have made an interesting point.
	In the name of security and stability, I believe that the present law should stand. I shall first consider security. Marriage brings not only privileges but legal responsibilities which, I believe, provide greater security for a child. If two people really wanted to adopt a child, and were considering the interests and security of that child, they should want to marry—unless there was an impediment. For example, unless the cohabitee is joint legal owner of the shared home, she has no rights over the property, but when a married couple split up both spouses have statutory rights over the matrimonial home.
	In the short term, a cohabitee can apply for court orders allowing her—I am presuming that it would be her rather than him, although I realise that it could be the other way around—and the child to stay in the shared home for a maximum of 12 months, whereas a married parent left with the child would be given the right to live in the home until the child reached the age of 18, and would also be granted at least 50 per cent., and sometimes between 60 and 70 per cent. or more, of the matrimonial home in their own right.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Widdecombe: I am going to make progress.
	If a cohabitee lives in a home owned by the father of the child—I am presuming that the parent with care is the mother, although I accept that that is not always so—it is possible that he could sell the house from under them, as no entitlement for her to live there would be recorded at the Land Registry. Matrimonial rights over property are protected by an entry on the land register. To help provide for a child, a cohabitee can apply for an order that the other party pay a lump sum, or pay for specified items such as school fees, but for a married spouse there is a duty of financial support for the children, and the payments may be substantial.
	The mother herself has no right to maintenance payments if she is a cohabitee, and that could be extremely important if she is left with a child, whereas the courts can make a wide range of financial orders for the support of a spouse in her own right—such awards are not merely dependent on the child.
	Certain basic securities spring from the legal status of marriage that would not be available to protect a child in what is called an "informal relationship".

Tom Levitt: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Widdecombe: I am sorry. I am not being awkward; I normally give way a lot, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am following your orders, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you are delighted that I am doing so.
	I shall now discuss stability. Statistics collected by the Office for National Statistics—not an organisation with an axe to grind—show that 8 per cent. of married couples split up in the five years following the birth of a child, and that 25 per cent. of cohabiting couples who later marry split up. However, 52 per cent. of couples who cohabited and never married split up, so the adoptive parents of a child placed in one of those arrangements would be six and a half times more likely to split up than married adoptive parents.
	The consideration of those clear facts—the type of evidence that we sought and did not get for the contrary argument—leads me to believe that we are right to maintain the security and stability that marriage offers at present. It would be dishonest if I did not tell the House that I also believe that, as a society, we should continue to distinguish in favour of marriage. We should continue to recognise that marriage confers rights but also responsibilities, so I believe that it should be actively promoted by society. The hon. Member for Wakefield would probably agree.

David Hinchliffe: indicated assent

Ann Widdecombe: I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I again congratulate him. I do not dismiss either the passion or experience that he brings to the debate, but fundamentally I believe that it is in the interests of the child that married couples be the adoptive parents.

Jonathan R Shaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) who made an outstanding contribution. He gave a measured speech that encapsulated the feelings of many hon. Members.
	During the Special Standing Committee, we heard evidence from 30 professional organisations. The gathering of evidence from expert witnesses was certainly the best way of ensuring that the legislation was right. As several hon. Members have pointed out, we only introduce such legislation once in a generation and considerable efforts have been made on both sides of the House to get it right.
	I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the current legislation is deficient. We asked all those 30 professional witnesses, representing various organisations, whether they agreed with the proposals that are now set out in my hon. Friend's amendment—I tabled a similar amendment in Committee. Twenty-nine of the witnesses agreed that we should widen the pool, especially if we are to reach the 40 per cent. increase that we all want. We all believe that adoption offers the best opportunity for stability for children.
	There is a hierarchy involved. The optimum is a married couple—a mother and a father. That is first and foremost. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) referred to the number of boys who were included in the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering "Be My Parent" booklet and pointed out how few inquiries were made about them. That is true for many, many children. At present, the pool is not wide enough so we must widen it.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan R Shaw: I want to speak only for a short while.
	We need to face the situation that I have described not only for the present but for future generations. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) asked how many more adoptive parents there might be: we do not know. At present, unmarried couples are unable to adopt, so it is wrong to compare—

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan R Shaw: I shall give way in a moment.
	It is wrong to compare the breakdown rates of cohabiting couples, who are not subject to the rigorous assessments for adoption, with those of unmarried couples who might become prospective adopters. We need to dispel the general argument put by those who oppose my hon. Friend's proposals.
	The key point about such legislation—whether on adoption or child protection—is that we consider it only once in a generation, so we need to ensure that we do the best we can. Are we doing the best that we can for children who want to be adopted?
	I was a social worker for more than a decade. We had permanent adoption plans for many children, but there was not a big enough pool of adoptive parents for them. When I visited such children, they would ask whether I had found them a permanent family: "Have you found me a mummy and a daddy?" I had to say, "Not yet". I had to keep saying, "Not yet, not yet".
	I do not know whether the provision will change that. I do not know whether it will mean that social workers will be able to assess more adoptive families, but I believe that it is worth trying. It is certainly worth trying to ensure that we can widen the pool.

Edward Leigh: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence for the assertion that a tremendous number of cohabiting couples want to adopt? The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering claims that
	"some adoption agencies process an adoption as if it is by a single person when in fact the person is cohabiting."
	That organisation commissioned Cardiff university to carry out a study of almost 2,000 adoptions, in which it
	"did not record any adoptions by a cohabiting couple."
	I am afraid that any evidence. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) not listen to the first point that I made? Some agencies deliberately flout the law and process an application
	"as if it is by a single person when in fact the person is cohabiting."
	Not one of the 2,000 people in the Cardiff study was cohabiting. Where is the evidence to show that great numbers of cohabiting people want to adopt?

Jonathan R Shaw: If there is evidence of people flouting the law, people should pass it on to the proper authorities, but we took evidence from 30 professional agencies and witnesses from different spectrums of child care. They were not all of one type; there was a whole variety of people. When we asked, 29 of them agreed with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and said that we need to do the best that we can.
	There is no assertion that scores and scores of unmarried couples want to adopt, but such an amendment would increase the pool. There is no pure equation, but we have to deal with such things in child care. We have to put our hands on our hearts and say that we will do the best that we can. We have to take a view of the world that we live in. I believe that, to increase the number of children being adopted, we should support amendment No. 158, and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Lansley: It seems a long time ago that a small number of hon. Members and I raised precisely this issue on Second Reading. At that time, those on the Front Benches ducked the issue. On this occasion, they have half ducked it, but it is important that, as the Secretary of State for Health said at the time, we have a debate and that the House decides. I do not normally comment on how the usual channels work and how the whipping goes on such things, but this is very much the sort of issue on which hon. Members, from their own experience, are best able to form a judgment. Things would be better done that way, rather than through the medium of a whipped vote.
	I am pleased to follow, among others, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) because, as he rightly said, I was a member of the Select Committee on Health under his chairmanship, when it considered children looked after by local authorities. Indeed, we recommended reform of adoption law. That reform was overdue then, and it is very welcome now.
	I do not repeat what has been said, not least by the hon. Member for Wakefield, with whom I very substantially agree—I shall come on to where and why we disagree—but I want to encourage colleagues, particularly on this side of the House, not to think about this issue as though, by resisting the hon. Gentleman's amendments, we can roll the world back to a situation where the only people who want to be adoptive parents are married couples, or where they would come forward in sufficient numbers, notwithstanding the improvements and reductions in delay that may occur as a consequence of the Bill.
	Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), let us construct the argument around the best interests of children based on what happens now, not on the proposition that there is an additional pool of prospective adopters—although I happen to agree that there would be some additional potential adoptive parents as a result of allowing unmarried couples to adopt. About 6 per cent. of those who adopt now are single. Overwhelmingly, they are in cohabiting relationships and are unmarried couples—heterosexuals in the great majority.
	So the question is what is in the best interests of the child where those couples are concerned. Having established to the satisfaction of the relevant agencies and the courts that one person in that relationship is the best person to adopt the child, is it in the best interests of the child for the other person in that relationship not to have a long-term, lasting legal relationship with that child? That is not in the best interests of the child.
	Conservative Members have established that, if there is a hierarchy of the best interests of the child, it is that a child should be brought up by a mother and a father, first, in a married relationship, or, if there is not a married relationship, an enduring, loving relationship. That seems to be the best way to proceed. If children are to be placed for adoption with a couple—a mother and a father—but the current constraints of the law provide that only one of those two parents can have the legal relationship with the child, that is not in the best interests of the child.
	It would be advantageous to free up the possibility for couples to adopt, even though they are unmarried. The evidence that I have seen so far from our inquiry and from talking to directors of social services and others in my constituency and elsewhere and from the adoption agencies makes it perfectly clear that a number of potential parents who are unmarried have their own reasons for not wanting to marry.
	Should we see the Bill as some form of social engineering? Is it designed to try to force people to marry in order to become adoptive parents? I think that we should conclude that people should marry if they love one another and if they want to show that to society at large by using that form of relationship. If we do not take that view—I am sorry to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—would we really saying that the increasing number of people in our society who have natural children and who, as a couple, do not marry are in some way not considering the best interests of their children? They have their reasons.
	It is not for us to try to use adoption legislation, which should be designed around the best interests of the child, as a mechanism to effect a change in social circumstances in society at large, still less to try to go back to a different time. Many couples have their own many and varied reasons for not marrying. In some cases they face impediments to marriage. There may not be legal impediments, but there could be religious reasons and so on, which make things very difficult.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is the chairman of the all-party group on children and young people in care.

Hilton Dawson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I follow his logic entirely and share his views on social engineering. Do not his arguments apply equally to same-sex couples?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman takes me precisely to my next point. Thus far I have agreed with the hon. Member for Wakefield, and my purpose in speaking is not least to say that, if the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) were to be passed, I would want to press amendment No. 24, which is designed to define unmarried couples for this purpose as a man and a woman living together. However, if the hon. Gentleman's amendment is not passed, and amendment No. 148 and the consequential amendments associated with it were passed, I would want to press amendment No. 158(a), which is designed to remove same-sex couples from the definition of couples for this purpose.
	My understanding—you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that the Division on amendment No. 158 will take place not now but on Monday, but we must make the argument now. I hope that hon. Members will understand that we can debate same-sex couples today, but we shall have to vote on Monday. I hope that, on Monday, having indicated that they are prepared to allow unmarried couples to adopt, hon. Members will not, for the reasons that I have explained, extend that to same-sex couples.
	Some of the arguments that I have presented are exactly the same as those that Stonewall has put to me. I have great respect for its arguments and we have had some interesting discussions, but we have not reached the same conclusions. Stonewall says that if a child is placed for adoption with a couple who happen to be of the same sex, why should not both partners in that relationship have a long-term, lasting legal relationship? My purpose in speaking to the amendment is not perhaps the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), whose view may be shared by other Opposition Members. Their view is that they would not wish children to be placed for adoption with a gay person in a gay relationship. That does happen—I am working on the basis of what happens now. On Second Reading, I noted—I probably did not refer to it—that last year's October issue of Be My Parent illustrated, at length, precisely such a relationship: a lesbian couple who had adopted, over time, four children. I hope that that is successful; I cannot say anything more than was set out in that newspaper.
	This is the issue: why should we go on to create, for gay couples, a legal relationship that would not apply in a natural birth family? As a consequence of allowing unmarried couples to adopt, we will create, as one would normally expect, a legal mother and a legal father. As a consequence of the hon. Member for Wakefield's amendment, were it not amended as I propose, we would create two legal mothers or two legal fathers. Some other parts of legislation work on the basis of parents, but I am not persuaded that we have yet reached the point at which all our legislation should treat all parenting as wholly non-gender-specific.
	I accept that there is a degree to which the parenting skill often crosses gender. Some fathers are better at being mothers to their children and some mothers are better at being fathers. By and large, however, most of our legislation, although it may be written in terms of parenting, is understood in terms of the respective responsibilities of mothers and fathers. There tends to be an understanding of how parenting works in that relationship. We should consider very carefully whether to take the novel step of creating two legal mothers or two legal fathers, especially when the provision may be used more often to assist the lesbian partner of someone who has given birth to a child through donor insemination than it ever will be to assist gay couples to adopt children, who may often be older or severely disabled and for whom there is a significant lack of adoptive parents.

Nick Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the arguments that he advanced for the deficiency of an arrangement in which one partner is the legal adoptive parent and the other is not also apply to a gay relationship? How confident is he that his amendment is compatible with the European convention on human rights.

Andrew Lansley: I shall make two points in that regard.
	I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has been listening to me carefully, as the essence of my argument is that, although I accept the case in respect of unmarried couples, we would create a whole new legal situation in relation to gay couples. It is not therefore directly comparable with the situation for unmarried couples, so we should not necessarily read across.
	On the European convention on human rights, the case of Frette v. France gave effectively a margin of appreciation to the French Government not to allow a gay man to adopt. I think that that was wrong, and that it was probably incompatible with convention rights.
	My amendment proposes that we do not create in UK legislation at this stage a possibility for there to be two legal mothers at the same time through gay adoption. I suspect that the European Court of Human Rights, were it to consider the matter, would allow at least that margin of appreciation, as we are not precluding gay adoption. Everyone has made that clear—gay adoption happens now. It was established in a case in Scotland, which points to exactly the situation in which gay adoption is most likely to happen.
	In the Scottish case, which established the principle, a nurse who had substantial experience of dealing with a child who had severe disabilities was able to adopt that child. Circumstances therefore exist in which gay adoption happens, and in which it may be in the best interests of the child. As a consequence of that, circumstances exist in which the partner in that gay relationship may seek a joint residence order. A joint residence order may not be all that gay partners want in such a relationship, but it is sufficient for the time being, while we think carefully about the consequences of trying to establish the proposition that one can have two legal mothers or two legal fathers rather than what we have understood to be the case up to now—that we should have parents, which, in British law, implies a mother and a father.
	For that reason, I shall vote for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield—I hope that my colleagues will follow me—but I hope that he will understand if, on Monday, I seek to amend it.

Meg Munn: I shall be brief, because I believe that much has already been said in this debate, and I commend hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which this issue is being discussed.
	One of the problems with adoption is that we tend to approach the issue as we would that of two people having a natural child. Years ago, that was perhaps how adoption was most frequently seen—a couple who were unable to have their own children would seek to adopt a child from somebody who could not keep a child. We are now in a very different situation, in which most children who are adopted come through the care system, most are older children, and most have experienced some form of abuse and are likely to have significant emotional problems.
	Today, adoption is about looking for families for children. Nowadays, in our society, families come in many types. In my view, we should not rule out any adult who, after rigorous assessment, is thought to be able to offer a loving, lifelong relationship to a child. We have heard a lot about what is considered the ideal, and about what our ideal would be were we to have children, but that is not what we are talking about. The ideal would be to have enough adoptive parents for all the children who currently seek adoptive families and for all the children whom we would like to seek adoptive families.
	That is not the situation. In fact, there are more children awaiting adoption than there are adoptive parents. It is nothing short of political correctness to rule out unmarried couples whether of different sexes or the same sex. To suggest, as did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), that it is okay for one person to adopt is wrong—we will be creating new legal relationships whether in relation to unmarried couples of different sexes or unmarried couples of the same sex. Indeed, it was those very technical and complex legal difficulties that delayed consideration of these amendments in Committee, as the Minister said, so I do not accept the arguments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire.
	We must ensure that the needs of children are put first.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady says that we must ensure that the needs of children are put first, and the whole House shares that concern. Does she appreciate that not all types of family are equally likely to be stable? While she is right that there are many types of families, they are not all likely to offer the adopted child the same level of security, stability and consistency.

Meg Munn: I entirely accept that not all families are equally stable, but I reject the idea that certain types of family are less stable. We are talking about individual children being placed in individual family homes. Adoption panels and social workers spend a great deal of time trying to match children with people who can meet their needs.
	I have been involved in placing children in same-sex couples. The process was particularly interesting and that was not because I found that those couples were very different from heterosexual couples. As hon. Members know, a rigorous assessment takes place. There is a full report—sometimes, it is considered to be too intrusive. I have read literally hundreds of those reports. One reads about people's life experience, childhood, work, relationships, what they do at the weekend and their experience with children. The few reports that I have read on same-sex couples struck me because they were extraordinarily ordinary. Their lives are the same as everyone else's.
	Couples who are offering a home to children are focused on exactly that. They want to have children in their lives.

David Borrow: I read an article in an American newspaper some two months ago about a young child who was seriously ill and not expected to live and who had been adopted by a same-sex couple. Eventually, the child prospered. When the child reached the age of 10, the authorities decided that it should no longer be fostered but should be adopted. Under the law in that state—Florida—the authorities were not allowed to place the child with a same-sex couple. Legally, they had to take the child from the couple who had raised it since it was very young and place it with a different family.

Meg Munn: Clearly, in my hon. Friend's example the needs of the child were not properly considered. That has to be the bottom line. We do not have enough adults who want to adopt. We do not have enough people offering families. We have to widen the pool and look to the future by saying that anyone who can offer the love, care and stability that children in care need should be approved and enabled to look after a child.

Peter Lilley: I approach this subject in the light of my experience as Secretary of State for Social Security, when it became clear to me, in terms of social problems, that children who had had the advantage of adoption tended to do as well if not better than average, whereas those who remained in care did far worse than average. Four times as many were unemployed. They were 12 times as likely to have no educational qualifications, 40 times as likely to go to prison, 60 times as likely to be roofless and 66 times as likely to have children who had to go into care, thus perpetuating the process.
	I start from a presumption that we should encourage more and speedier adoption. When the British Agencies for Adopting and Fostering wrote to me, saying
	"it does not make sense to exclude a significant proportion of the adult population from consideration"
	for adopting children, I was inclined to agree. I started from the position expressed by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), which was also described very lucidly by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). Although marriage is undoubtedly preferable—the ideal is that children should be brought up in a loving, married family—if there are not enough loving, married families to go around, in principle I would be prepared to widen the scope. After all, we allow children in care to be brought up by people who may be married or single, cohabiting or not, homosexual or otherwise.
	I agree with the BAAF that it would not make sense to exclude a significant proportion of the adult population from consideration for adoption. However, no one is, in fact, excluded. Under present law, no one is legally excluded from consideration for adoption: one may be married or unmarried, cohabiting or single, gay or lesbian, young or old, or black or white: one is legally entitled to adopt. Last year, 300 single people adopted children—about 6 per cent. of the total number adopting. I do not believe that the change proposed will increase by one person the number of people with the right to adopt. The numbers argument is therefore bogus.
	Having vaguely acknowledged the situation, but without making it clear, BAAF went on to say:
	"BAAF research shows that many unmarried couples do not come forward for this reason"—
	namely, that they cannot adopt collectively as a couple; they can only adopt if one of them acts as sole legal adoptive parent. I phoned BAAF to ask for the evidence and spoke to Mrs. Felicity Collier, the chief executive of the organisation, who wrote the letter. She said that there was no evidence to that effect as such. In the letter, she was referring to a study of 500 parents during national adoption week. At the beginning of the sample, 15 per cent. were unwed; at the end, only 8 per cent. of those who carried it through to close to completion were unmarried. A disproportionate number of unmarried people had dropped out, but they were not asked why. No information was gathered on that.
	So the assertion in the letter was not backed up by evidence. Indeed, no hon. Member has produced evidence today to support the idea that a significant number of people are put off adopting by the legal situation. It is certainly the case that no one is legally excluded from adopting.

Jonathan R Shaw: I said that we do not know whether there is a large pool. We have to make an assessment, and that is based on what we know—on how society is shaped. We also take account of those people who provide adoptive placements for children. Some 29 of the 30 agencies agreed with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).

Peter Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is honest enough to admit that there is no evidence. I am referring to a lobbying body that is pre-eminent in adoption. It wrote to me pretending that there is evidence, which, on closer inspection, does not exist. Why Mrs. Collier, who seemed nice and honest, should put her name to such a tendentious letter, I do not know.

Hilton Dawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Lilley: I am sorry, but I must continue, for the reasons made clear by other hon. Members.
	There seems to be an agenda to raise the importance of rights above responsibilities—to equate cohabitation with marriage and homosexual relations with heterosexual relations. To some extent, children are being used as pawns in that game. I accept that it would be equally wrong to use children as pawns or a bait for marriage. I am not saying that I believe we should legislate to provide the incentive to marry that only married people can adopt. That is not the reason for our approach. What matters is that we act in the interests of children—not in the interests of married couples, unmarried couples, gay people, elderly people or younger people.

Hilton Dawson: rose—

Kevin Brennan: rose—

Peter Lilley: I will not give way, for the reason that I gave.
	The practical effect of the change will not be to bring about a significant increase in the number of people who apply to adopt. What it will do is raise the priority given to unmarried parents and reduce the questions that are asked about whether their relationship is likely to be as stable as a married relationship.
	We know that overall there is a surplus of parents who want to adopt relative to the number of children. It is babies that are in short supply. What we need are more parents who are willing to adopt not the babies but the children who are harder to adopt. They are the most vulnerable children. They have the greatest difficulties and are in most need of stable relationships and a secure environment. In practice, I do not think that many of those 300 or so who have come forward to adopt and who are not married are particularly likely disproportionately to take on those children who are so hard to place.

Meg Munn: They do.

Peter Lilley: I said, "particularly likely." I am not saying there are no examples of that happening, but those couples are likely to displace married couples from applications to adopt and reduce their priority when it comes to adopting babies. That is likely to be the major consequence of the proposed change.
	It has been asked whether Conservative Members are saying that the unmarried are automatically unstable and unlikely to remain together, and so on. In fact, we are talking about statistics. The House will be given statistics showing the frequency with which unmarried couples break up as against married couples. These are statistics, and the differences can be felt. There will be unmarried couples who live together peacefully, harmoniously and lovingly all their lives. There will be unmarried couples who are as committed as any married couple. Indeed, from a theological point of view, in the sight of God they are married, because marriage is the commitment and not the public institutionalisation of it. Unfortunately, I do not have the insight of God—none of us has—and so I do not know who is committed and who is not. It is simply more difficult to know if people will not make the commitment public and declare it through the institution of marriage.
	That is the difficulty and the problem. We are asking social workers to assess which of the comparative minority among unmarried couples are every bit as committed, as stable, as permanent and as long term as the average marriage. Of course, some of the wedded couples will break up: some are not committed and should be excluded. If they can be identified ex ante they should be excluded from adoption, although that is difficult.
	It is surely foolish for us to write it into the law that consideration should be effectively uninfluenced by whether or not people make a public commitment to the responsibilities that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) spelled out as being part of marriage and the commitment that is an intrinsic part of it too.
	Children are not trophies to whom anyone has the right. Children are not and should not be tools of social engineering, either by those who pursue a politically correct agenda or by those of us who believe in marriage. The children we are talking about are the most vulnerable, and have the greatest difficulties if they are not satisfactorily adopted. We should be seeking the best for them, and not the best for parents.

Paul Stinchcombe: I am a married man and I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe also that it is vital as part of the social infrastructure of modern society. I am the father of three young children. I am grateful beyond words that they are brought up in a loving, stable family environment. I also happen to be a Christian. It is because I am a Christian who believes in the family that I strongly support the amendments, whereby non-married couples, including same-sex couples, will be able to adopt children.
	In the shifting values of modern times, there are few, if any, absolute values on which all of us agree. However, one value that comes closer than many to achieving that consensus is, I suggest, the imperative to love and cherish children. It is not only a biblical imperative. It is one that is shared by those of all faiths and of none—people who believe, like me, that the interests and needs of children are paramount and that they should always come first.
	If we hold that view, it would seem that our duties today in this place are clear. First, we must examine the evidence to ascertain whether the interests of children are currently being put first. Secondly, if they are not, we must decide what needs to be done in the real world in which children live to ensure that that is remedied. Thirdly, we must decide for ourselves whether that requires statutory expression through the amendments. I shall look at those three questions in turn.
	First, it is clear that children are not being put first. There are thousands of vulnerable children who are either in care or in need of care. Many of these children are fostered. Many will return to their natural family in due course, albeit sometimes under supervision and protection. Many others—especially older children, disabled children and hard-to-place children—will not find long-term foster families and will not return home. They are the lost children of the modern age. For them, there may be three possibilities: the street, institutionalised care homes or adoption.
	Secondly, in the real world, which is the best of the three options if we are to protect children and put their interests first? It must surely be by protecting them from the street, by taking them out of institutionalised residential care, and by placing them whenever possible in long-term loving family environments, with families who are equipped to give them the care, love and support that they need. That must mean adoption on a scale which, at present, we are not achieving; we have to find about 5,000 more adoptive families every year if we are to find homes for those lost children.
	Thirdly, we have to ask ourselves whether there is anything that we can and should do as parliamentarians to meet that need by passing legislation or amendments to it. Current legislation restricts the pool of adoptive families; married couples can adopt, as can single people, whether gay or straight, but unmarried couples cannot. It does not matter how long people have been in such a relationship; it does not matter how skilled and loving those people would be, or perhaps already are, as parents; it does not matter how many children are lost and whose lives are wasted in residential institutions, when they need loving homes; and it does not matter how desperate those children are. None of that matters; unmarried couples cannot adopt.
	In a time of great need for more adoptive families, it is absurd that, by legislation, we are denying a pool of adoptive families who could clearly make a significant contribution any chance of adoption. No one is arguing for a lowering of the rigorous thresholds by which the suitability of adoptive parents is judged. We are talking only about adoptive parents independently judged by the adoption agencies and the courts as having the capacity and commitment to be safe and effective parents. How can it be right to preserve the legislative status quo, thereby ignoring the opportunity offered by that pool of adoptive families? There is no justification whatever for doing so.
	We live in an imperfect world, in which we must do the best that we can to make things a little bit better; we should not strive for perfection or the impossible, as that would mean achieving nothing. Countless marriages end in divorce; indeed, that is one reason why we need more adoption. Many people choose not to marry again and many choose never to marry at all, but numerous people seek loving permanent relationships outside marriage. We may not like it, but it happens; that is the world in which we live. To cut all those people off from the pool of adoptive families—however decent and loving and however secure and stable their relationship may be—is to cut massively and arbitrarily the supply of loving parents who could meet the needs of children.
	How can it be right to allow children to remain in care when they could be in loving, caring families instead? If children who need care can be adopted by a loving single parent, how can it be right that they cannot be adopted by a loving couple? After all, if one mum or one dad is better than none, two must surely be as acceptable as one.
	It is argued that allowing unmarried couples to adopt would demean the institution of marriage: I disagree, because the needs of the child should come first. Any argument that sacrifices the needs of the child to any other public interest, even protecting the ideal of marriage, is misguided. It subverts one moral value, the protection of children, and sacrifices it to another, the protection of the ideal of marriage, which is less realisable and important.
	Protecting that ideal is less realisable than the interests of the child in care, at least from a parliamentary perspective, because while Parliament can vote to enable a child to have a better chance of finding an adoptive family, we can never vote or legislate to make people marry, or keep married couples and families together.
	From a legislative perspective, protecting the ideal of marriage is also less important than protecting the interests of the child, because in any modern democracy we must legislative for everyone. As a Christian, I have a personal view of marriage and believe in its sanctity. I believe that it is a sacrament. I believe that it has spiritual and religious importance, but there are others who do not share my faith, and in our democracy, they have rights too.
	I know people who genuinely believe in monogamous partnerships and who believe that that is the natural way of things, but they do not believe that marriage itself is natural. They believe that it is a man-made concept, a religious concept, a social construct of no relevance to them. In a democracy, they have rights too.

Peter Lilley: rose—

Paul Stinchcombe: There are also those who do share my belief in marriage but who find, no matter how hard they try in their own marriage, that they fail and that their marriage does not last. They have rights too, even if they do not remarry. Those rights surely extend far enough to include the right to offer to help to meet the needs of children in care by offering to be adoptive parents to them.
	I do not, however, rest my case on the rights of the parent. I rest my case on the rights of the child. The child has rights too—the right to a family, the right to be loved by a family, and the right to be looked after by a family, even if that family unit does not match our ideal. We, in this House, should not sit in moral judgment over families, nor should we stand in the way of the rights of those children being met, for reasons of political or religious correctness or out of idealism.
	We must strike a balance. We have an ideal, not universally shared and not realisable by Parliament. Against that ideal, we can weigh thousands of damaged, lonely, unloved, abandoned children, currently kept in care and kept out of families, when we might be able to find them a loving home. For me, that balance can yield only one result: the children must come first.

Tim Loughton: I shall speak to the generality of the amendments—

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to take the time of the House or of my hon. Friend, but would you please convey to Mr. Speaker that the timetable that the House has been constrained to follow has prevented a proper debate on both sides of the House and on all sides of the argument?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Speaker has nothing to do with the timetables that are presented to the House.

Tim Loughton: I have great sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), but I shall try again to summarise the debate. I shall speak to the generality of the amendments and explain why the official Opposition will not be supporting them and why I shall advise hon. Members to vote against them.
	The subject under discussion has dominated the Bill for far too long—a Bill that has 137 clauses and six schedules and is packed full of many other issues. It is those issues to which I shall direct attention.
	Although the debate has been curtailed, it has been interesting. We have had some excellent contributions from all speakers—certainly as soon as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) sat down. It was an extraordinary revelation from a political party—the admission that a mother and father figure just happen to be, but are not exclusively, the best bet that children can have. It is astonishing that that is official Liberal Democrat policy.
	We heard interesting contributions about the legal implications, moral agendas, legal rights, equality of opportunity and even reverse political correctness. However, I am not interested in any of that as regards creating a better system for adoption and adopted children, and for expanding that system, which is the subject of the Bill. That is what should concern us today, and what has concerned some of us for the past six months, since the Bill started its passage through Parliament. We have strongly supported the Bill throughout, and I have become closely involved with the subject of adoption and scrutinising the Bill.
	Two over-riding considerations lie at the heart of our deliberations. The first is set out in clause 1(2), which states:
	"The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life".
	The second consideration is whether the changes proposed will improve and expand the system of adoption in this country, and thereby heighten the chances of making clause 1 a reality for more children. That is what we are here to discuss today—nothing else. Now is not the time for political agendas, for promoting gay rights agendas, or even for promoting the moral basis for the desirability of marriage. In that I agree with the comment in The Guardian editorial on 14 March when it said:
	"Adoption should not be used as a means of promoting marriage; it is children's interests which should be paramount."
	By the same token, neither should adoption be used as a means of promoting alternative lifestyles and equal opportunities for adults, as I fear increasingly it has become. In the context of this Bill, the only equal opportunity that I am interested in is the equal opportunity of a child who ends up in care as a result of a broken home, domestic violence or sexual abuse, or because their parents are unable to cope, often after a catalogue of personal tragedies and multiple upheavals.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I will not for the moment.
	Our agenda here must be the equal opportunity of those damaged children to have a second chance to repair their lives and to be brought up in as stable, loving and fulfilling a family environment as possible to give them as fair a chance as the rest of us when they go out into the wide world outside.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I apologise, but I want to make progress.
	Over recent months, many of us have been heavily lobbied on the Bill by all manner of Christian family organisations and the politically correct social worker brigade. I, like most hon. Members who have spoken today, may have strong views on those subjects on either side, but the Bill is not the means to promote them.
	We have already wasted far too much time in delaying the Bill since its Committee stage ended some four months ago. We all know that it is because of the debate that has been raging between No. 10 and the rest of the Government over the issue of extending adoption to unmarried couples, which has, temporarily at least, been resolved by a free vote on the Government side, which is perfectly legitimate. But it should not have taken four months. This is desperately needed legislation that we needed yesterday, not tomorrow.
	One interesting point about today's debate is its attendance. When we started the Bill's Report stage on 20 March only a handful of Members were here, mostly those who had served on the Committee. When we spoke about much more important issues earlier today, again few Members were here. Yet those issues have far more serious implications for making adoption work. Media coverage, too, has been purely on the unmarrieds issue. Yet today and on Monday we are debating much bigger issues, such as domestic violence involving children, matters of consent, procedures for overseas adoptions and contact orders.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Tim Loughton: I said that I wanted to make some progress.
	We are now told that the Liberals were not due to be whipped to be here at all on Monday. They are interested only in the gay rights agenda as part of the Bill, which is disgraceful.
	It is interesting that the BBC, which has been ringing round the expert adoption agencies asking specifically how many complaints they have received from unmarried couples who find that they are unable to adopt jointly, was rather surprised when it reached about the seventh of those adoption agencies to be told that it had not had any complaints about unmarried adoption, to which the BBC said that, funnily enough, nor had anybody else. That follows the findings in the Government's 2000 White Paper "Adoption: A New Approach" which listed the 10 main problems to overcome to improve adoption, including delays in the system, inconsistencies in the law and insufficient social worker training, but no mention of the marital status or otherwise of prospective adopters.
	Despite this interesting debate, we shall urge hon. Members on both sides to vote against the amendments and to maintain the status quo, because this issue is a sideshow compared with the real concerns of promoting and improving adoption. All the research, all the statistics and all the sociological evidence show that a family that contains a married couple offers the best chance of providing a long-term stable environment for children in need of adoption.
	Many may argue that long-term stable environments can also be offered by unmarried couples, whether of the opposite sex or the same sex. I am not arguing against that point here. But no one can refute the evidence that shows that married couples offer the best chances, in most cases by a long measure. Of course, it is not exclusively so and many problems still happen within those married families, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and others have mentioned. But overall the record is much better.
	Let me quote something.
	"Children in my judgment, and I think it's the judgment of almost everyone including single parents, are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship. There's no question about that. What we know from the evidence is that, generally speaking, that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married than where they're not."
	Those were the words of the Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary in 1998. I quote:
	"Marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain."
	That is from the Government's 1998 Green Paper.
	I quote:
	"The adoption law review, when considering this issue, concluded that joint adoption should remain limited to married couples on the grounds that adoption by a married couple was more likely to provide the stability and security that the child needed because married couples have made a joint, publicly recognised, legal commitment to each other. In addition, marriage provides for mutual legal and financial obligations, and importantly in the event of divorce, the couple must be prepared to have plans for the future of their children scrutinised by the courts. There is no provision in law to protect the child's interests when unmarried couples separate."
	Those were the words of the Minister herself. Currently, 95 per cent. of adoptions are by married people. Seventy per cent. of children born within marriage will live their entire childhood with both natural parents, compared with 36 per cent. of children born to non-married couples. According to the Office for National Statistics, children brought up by married couples are statistically far more likely to have better health, to do better at school, to have fewer behavioural problems and to be less likely to commit a criminal offence.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I will not.
	By contrast, cohabiting couples are six times more likely to split up than married couples, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, more than half of cohabiting couples split up within five years of the birth of a child. They split up most often when they have children. The statistics go on and on. The figures show that gay relationships are more transitory still. Married couples offer by far the best long-term chances of stability, statistically and sociologically, and that is what we should be concentrating on. We must make it much easier and quicker for married couples to adopt, which is what the rest of the Bill is all about.
	Marriage is on the increase. In 2000, there were 263,515 marriages. About 22 million marriages currently exist. So if we want to increase the current 3,000 adoptees by at least 50 per cent., as we all do, there is plenty of scope in the existing material, and we need to concentrate on why more such people are not coming forward or being approved as adopters.
	All the amendments—apart from amendment No. 24, which is different—miss the point. They would open up adoption to any manner of pick-and-mix couples, including heterosexual cohabitees—even brother and sister—and same-sex couples, who have the worst record statistically.
	New clause 2 also has serious technical problems. How do we define whether people are in a stable relationship? The amendments would create a mess. They would also send out the wrong signals to local authorities, which might present the courts with more unmarried couples instead of concentrating on maximising the availability of existing married couples, against whom there has been too much obstruction from the political correctness brigade in the past.
	We are spending all this time discussing amendments that tackle the wrong problem. In any case, keeping the status quo means that single parent adoptions, which currently constitute 5 per cent. of all adoptions, can still continue. We are not seeking to change that situation. Unmarried couples wanting to adopt have the solution in their own hands—they can commit to each other in a long-term relationship by getting married. I quote:
	"Why would a cohabiting couple not see—not necessarily in church, but under the law—defining their relationship in terms of a more public, legal contract as being a precursor to actually adopting a child?"
	Those are the words of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
	No one has a right to adopt, but every abandoned child or child in care has a right to get a second chance of a stable and loving upbringing. Yet I fear that too many Members here today who are interested in this part of the Bill are in danger of putting the interests of adults ahead of those of children. I fear that this part of the Bill is in danger of being manipulated to serve a different agenda that is all about the wishes of adults. I invite all hon. Members to join us in the Lobby to vote against all the amendments that open up adoption without qualification and to put the interests of children first. I invite the Liberals in particular to put aside their whipped agenda for gay rights and to concentrate on what is best for children by voting with us.
	To do so is not to be anti-gay or pro-marriage—for marriage is safe—but to be for the best interests of children. I ask hon. Members to put aside political agendas, moral crusades and issues of equal opportunity, deserving as those may be in a different context. The only equal rights that we should be concerned with in the context of the Bill are those of damaged children to a second chance of a stable and loving upbringing. That is best achieved by keeping the status quo and considering all the other ways of improving and expanding the whole adoption system, which is what the rest of this large Bill is intended to do. We should be getting on with that.

Jacqui Smith: On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that there should be a debate on adoption by unmarried couples. A good debate on the subject has taken place today, with hon. Members expressing well thought-out and deeply held views. During the Bill's passage, and especially in the consultative Special Standing Committee, we received many representations. We know that the issue is sensitive and difficult. Given the variety of views, the Government have decided to allow a free vote on extending eligibility to apply to adopt jointly. I am disappointed that other parties have not seen fit to do the same.
	I should like to comment on the detail of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 148 to 158 and new clause 13, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) tabled, would, for the first time, allow unmarried couples to apply jointly to adopt children. Hon. Members have understandably concentrated on principles. As a Minister, I am afraid that I have to concentrate not only on principles but on whether the legislation will work.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: No.
	Amendments Nos. 148 to 158 and new clause 13 would effect what hon. Members want in a way that is legally sensible and confines the definition of a couple to the Bill. The amendment that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) tabled would not achieve that. Clauses 47 and 48 define who is eligible to adopt. Amendments Nos. 148 to 155 would make the necessary changes, and amendment No. 158 would define a couple. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will withdraw the amendment. It would not achieve his intention but create considerable difficulties if hon. Members wanted to accept joint adoption by unmarried couples.
	As many hon. Members have said, the amendments would widen the pool of potential adoptive parents so that more vulnerable children have the chance of family life that adoption can bring. Evidence shows that there is a potential supply of couples who are willing to adopt. British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering has evidence showing 41 per cent. of unmarried couples expressing an interest in adopting jointly. However, as other hon. Members have pointed out, only 5 per cent. of adoptions are currently not by married couples. That suggests that there may be a supply of adoptive parents out there.
	As hon. Members have made clear, one of the key criteria for our decision must be whether we believe that we can increase opportunities for children to be adopted into stable and secure families. There appears to be evidence that we could widen the pool of potential adopters.

Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend help me to understand why an unmarried couple would refuse to marry if they genuinely wanted to adopt?

Jacqui Smith: I believe that there are many reasons, as several hon. Members suggested. We do not need to worry about that today. We should consider whether to increase the pool of adopters and how to promote the stability and security that many hon. Members have discussed.

Edward Leigh: I very much hope that the hon. Lady, on behalf of the Government, will now provide leadership and advice to the House. That is her duty as a Minister. Will she please confirm that she still believes the statement that she made very firmly in Committee in November 2001? In it, she said:
	"joint adoption should remain limited to married couples on the grounds that adoption by a married couple was more likely to provide the stability and security that the child needed because married couples have made a joint, publicly recognised, legal commitment to each other."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 29 November 2001; c. 383.]
	Will she repeat that statement today?

Jacqui Smith: I will repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said in Committee about the Government believing that there was scope for looking at unmarried couples being able to adopt and taking that forward through the partnership registration work that the Government were undertaking. There is nothing inconsistent in my position today.
	We need to be clear about the basis of this argument. A vote for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is not a vote to extend the right to adopt to unmarried people or to gay people. They already have that right. The existing legal framework for adoption already provides that single people may adopt regardless of their sex or sexual orientation; only married couples can adopt jointly. If a single person is living as part of a couple, the couple will be assessed jointly. One person will then adopt the child, and the other may acquire parental responsibility for the child by means of a residence order. This is not, therefore, about extending the right to adopt to gay people or unmarried people. Furthermore, if any hon. Members really opposed those ideas, they should, at some point during the passage of the Bill, have made their position clear. Nobody has done so.
	Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in his very considered speech, argued the case for stability for the child and the importance of the legal relationship that that child has with each of his parents. In the current legal framework, the child is missing having two parents, each with a legal relationship with him. We know from correspondence that we have received that adopted children worry about the difference it would make to them if, for example, their legal parent were to die leaving no one legally responsible for them. That does not provide security or stability for those children who are already living with unmarried couples and with gay people. Residence orders are not permanent. They come to an end when the child reaches the age of 16. Adoption, however, is for life.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made much of the concept of marriage, as did other hon. Members. This Government have supported marriage, and supported assistance for married people. As we have heard, the number of married people has gone up under the Labour Government. I am happily married, or so my husband tells me. This is not an attack on marriage. It is right that we should seek stability for children, and that can be—and often is—provided by married couples. It can also be provided, however, by other families and by other couples. Nothing in these proposals will water down the crucial assessment process that has to be undertaken to determine whether a relationship is stable—whether the couple is married or not.
	Under the amendments, particularly new clause 13, any couple—married or unmarried—wanting to become adoptive parents will need to prove not only that they can provide a loving family environment but that they form a stable and long-term partnership. The provisions in new clause 13 are important. All adoptive applicants must be assessed and approved by an adoption agency before they have children placed with them. That assessment will include a rigorous scrutiny of the stability of their relationship. That is right, because we are talking about stability and security; but I believe that we can deliver stability and security by means of the changes that the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield would make.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), it is ultimately right for the court to decide whether to make an adoption order. It is right that what we look for in the assessment process is a stable and permanent relationship, but when we find that, it may well be possible to address the need for a larger adoption pool.
	Our concern should relate to the circumstances of individual children, not statistical bantering about particular kinds of relationship. Some of the children we are considering are very troubled, and potentially difficult to place with adopters. Their relationship with specific people, including couples, who might have the skills, the stable homes and the love and care enabling them to offer something more should be at the centre of our debate.
	For many adoption agencies, the choice will be not about placing children with stable married couples or with unmarried couples, but about giving a child the chance to live in a stable loving family rather than being left in care, with all the instability and poor life chances that we know that can bring.
	This has been a wide-ranging debate, in which many Members have expressed the views on all sides of the argument. If the House decides to accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, the Government will undertake to table whatever consequential amendments are necessary—a considerable number—to ensure that this works in legislation. Amendments Nos. 148 to 158 and new clause 13 provide a legally workable basis on which to extend the right to adopt to unmarried couples.
	Ultimately, however, the debate is not about a right to adopt. It is not about political correctness. It is not about gay rights. It is not even about parents. It is about a child's chance of being in a family, and I hope that Members will vote on that basis.

Evan Harris: As has been said, this was a good debate, but it was curtailed by the timetable and the speech of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), which was an over-long rant, with no interventions. In that respect, he outdid all his senior Back-Bench colleagues in intolerance.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, this should be about the promotion of neither marriage nor alternative lifestyles but about putting the child first. However, I think that he will come to regret labelling adoption agencies, the NSPCC, Barnardo's, the National Children's Bureau, the Children's Society and the Law Society as the politically correct social worker brigade—just as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) will come to regret his reference to the use of children in social engineering. I disagreed with his speech and he should have the courage to say that he simply disagrees with me.

Peter Lilley: rose—

Evan Harris: I commend the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe). He put very well—

Peter Lilley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned me. Will he give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is not going to give way.

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House for a Member who mentions another to give way if the Member who has been mentioned seeks to correct the record?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe a number of criticisms have been made across the Floor during the debate.

Peter Lilley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asking about a convention of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That may well be the general convention, but because of time constraints it cannot apply to this particular debate.

Evan Harris: I urge hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 148 to 158.

Peter Lilley: rose—

Evan Harris: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I gave way about 10 times in my speech. I also urge hon. Members to put pressure on the Government to push the measure through the Lords, because we need it. In asking hon. Members to support amendment No. 148, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	It being Six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker pursuant to Order [this day] to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 47
	 — 
	Applications for adoption

Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 28, line 41, leave out "married".—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 133.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 149, in page 29, line 1, leave out "spouses" and insert "couple".
	No. 150, in page 29, line 4, leave out "spouses" and insert "of the couple".—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

Clause 48
	 — 
	Adoption by married couple

Amendments made: No. 151, in page 29, line 15, leave out "married".
	No. 152, in page 29, line 16, leave out "spouses" and insert "of them".
	No. 153, in page 29, line 17, leave out "married".
	No. 154, in page 29, line 19, leave out "spouse" and insert "of the couple".
	No. 155, in page 29, line 21, leave out "spouse".—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

Clause 49
	 — 
	Adoption by one person

Amendments made: No. 156, in page 29, line 24, at end insert—
	'(1A) An adoption order may be made on the application of one person who has attained the age of 21 years if the court is satisfied that the person is the partner of a parent of the person to be adopted'.
	No. 157, in page 29, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that further consequential amendments—amendment No. 158, new clause 13 and amendment No. 158(a), which is in the name of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and would remove from this group of amendments the possibility for same-sex couples to adopt as a couple—will not be debated today but, according to the order of proceedings, on Monday evening?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Those amendments will not be debated on Monday but they will be voted on then.

Clause 41
	 — 
	Child to live with adopters before application

Amendments made: No. 212, in page 25, line 29, after "applicant" insert—
	'or one of the applicants'.
	No. 213, in page 25, line 30, after "applicant" insert—
	'or, as the case may be, applicants'.
	No. 214, in page 25, line 44, leave out "afforded" and insert "given".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 43
	 — 
	Notice of intention to adopt

Amendments made: No. 215, in page 26, line 31, leave out "investigate" and insert—
	'arrange for the investigation of'.
	No. 216, in page 26, line 32, leave out "their" and insert "the".
	No. 217, in page 27, line 4, after "are" insert—
	'( ) in prescribed cases, references to the prescribed local authority,
	( ) in any other case, references'.
	No. 218, in page 27, line 5, at end insert—
	'and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 44
	 — 
	Adoption orders

Amendments made: No. 270, in page 27, line 15, after "Act" insert—
	'the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995'.
	No. 219, in page 27, line 32, at end insert—
	'( ) Before making an adoption order, the court must consider whether there should be arrangements for allowing any person contact with the child; and for that purpose the court must consider any existing or proposed arrangements and obtain any views of the parties to the proceedings'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 45
	 — 
	Conditions for making adoption orders

Amendments made: No. 220, in page 27, line 40, after "19" insert—
	'(and has not withdrawn the consent)'.
	No. 230, in page 28, line 23, leave out first "of" and insert "in".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 49
	 — 
	Adoption by one person

Amendments made: No. 221, in page 29, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
	No. 232, in page 29, line 42, leave out from "child's" to end of line 43 and insert—
	'being adopted by the applicant alone'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 50
	 — 
	Parental etc. consent

Amendments made: No. 222, in page 30, line 22, leave out "freely".
	No. 223, in page 30, line 28, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
	'( ) Consent under section 18 or 19 must be given in the form prescribed by rules, and the rules may prescribe forms in which a person giving consent under any other provision of this Part may do so (if he wishes).
	( ) Consent given under section 18 or 19 must be withdrawn—
	(a) in the prescribed form, or
	(b) by notice given to the agency'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 51
	 — 
	Modification of 1989 Act in relation to adoption

Amendments made: No. 224, in page 30, line 40, at end insert—
	'or
	( ) a child who has been placed for adoption by a local authority is less than six weeks old'.
	No. 225, in page 31, line 6, at end insert—
	'or a child who has been placed for adoption by a registered adoption society is less than six weeks old'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 52
	 — 
	Disclosing information during adoption process

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 31, line 26, leave out "may" and insert "must".

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 254.
	Amendment No. 19, in clause 54, page 31, line 42, after "adoption", insert—
	'which shall include all information necessary to fulfil the duty imposed by virtue of section [Disclosure of information regarding a person's adoption] (2),'.
	Government amendments Nos. 49 to 52.
	Amendment No. 147, in clause 59, page 33, line 37, at end insert—
	'(7) The provisions in this section relating to access to protected information shall be applicable to any adopted person, regardless of whether the date of that person's adoption was before or after the coming into force of this Act.'.
	Amendment No. 25, in page 33, line 37, at end insert—
	'(7) This section shall apply to all adopted persons, whether adopted before or after the coming into force of this Act.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 53 to 58.
	New clause 1—Right to obtain information: adult siblings—
	'(1) Adult siblings by birth of adopted adults who have been adopted at any time from the enactment of the Adoption Act 1926 shall have the right to make an application to an adoption agency, as specified in regulations, to obtain the information under section 77 relating to his relative who was adopted.
	(2) The agency shall make enquiries as necessary to establish the views of the adopted person concerning the disclosure of information to the relative.
	(3) The information applied for shall be supplied by the agency to the applicant unless either—
	(a) the adopted person has refused consent to the disclosure , or
	(b) the agency obtains an order from the High Court which authorises the agency not to disclose the information requested.
	(4) The High Court may make an order on an application by the appropriate adoption agency, if satisfied that the circumstances are except61ional.'.
	New clause 4—Disclosure of information regarding a person's adoption—
	'(1) This section shall apply only to an adopted person who has attained the age of 18 years.
	(2) The appropriate adoption agency shall have a duty to inform an adopted person that he was adopted, subject to the regulations referred to in subsection (3).
	(3) Regulations may prescribe—
	(a) the method by which adoption agencies shall discharge the duty described in subsection (2), and
	(b) any categories of adopted persons to whom the duty subscribed in subsection (2) shall not apply.'.

Tim Loughton: We now have all of 44 minutes in which to debate three important amendments and two new clauses tabled by myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, together with a handful of Government amendments.
	The amendments and new clauses in our name are on important subjects. They would provide full information to prospective adopters, giving rights of information to those involved—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Would Members leaving the Chamber please do so quickly, and would others be a little quieter so that the hon. Gentleman can make his speech?

Tim Loughton: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	As I was saying, the amendments are intended to give rights of information to those involved in adoption before the Bill comes into force. They would give rights to siblings of adopted people to make approaches to an adoption agency with a view to establishing contact with a long-since adopted brother or sister, and would provide a fundamental right for people to know by the age of 18 that they were adopted if they had not already been told. These subjects were all discussed in Committee, but I think that the Minister may have further comments to make.
	Amendment No. 8 would change a single word in clause 52 from "may" to "must". That may seem like a little amendment, but we spent much time in Committee discussing when a "may" should be a "must". That does not make this "may" any less important, although some of the debates in Committee were extremely exasperating.
	We have made the case that it is essential for a successful adoption that the provision of as much information as possible is made upfront to prospective adopters to make sure that they are going into the adoption process with both eyes wide open, that they make a fully informed decision that the prospective adoptee is the right choice and that they stand a good chance of being able to provide a stable and successful home environment. That is especially important if the child to be adopted has complex needs—learning or behavioural difficulties, educational problems, challenging psychological experiences from a past home environment or physical disabilities. It is no good finding out about those things after the adoption has been formalised and the court processes have taken place—by that time it is too late.
	It is also necessary to be able to cope with the special needs of those children after the adoption has taken place. During the witness stages of the Special Standing Committee, Professor Triseliotis told us of children who showed extremely strange behaviour at bath time. It turned out that in their previous family existence sexual abuse had taken place at bath time, so it was engrained on their psyche. There were many other examples that showed the importance of knowing all the information.
	The original clause 57 referred to the provision of appropriate information as soon as practicable after the making of an adoption order. To give the Government and Ministers credit, after pressure from the Opposition they rewrote the clause but I still cannot understand why the matter has been left for regulations that would, in effect, make optional the type and nature of the disclosure of relevant information by adoption agencies to prospective adopters. No proper explanation was given in Committee, so we are revisiting that provision. That is why we want to change the word "may" to "must".
	The adoption agencies have given us many examples that show the necessity for that change. For example, Barnardo's was effectively challenged in the courts for not providing enough information before an adoption. In other cases, a family's medical history has serious implications for an adopted person later in life—as regards genetic disclosures and so on. It is essential that a full medical history is available at the outset to adoptive parents so that suitable precautionary medical treatment or checks can be undertaken if there is a problem later.
	There must be a clear commitment that agencies must provide all the necessary information at the time of adoption. That is a legitimate reason for our amendment. We are still not satisfied with the provisions in respect of information for prospective adopters.
	Amendment No. 19 makes an addition to clause 54, which needs to be beefed up to ensure that adoption agencies keep records that are detailed enough to fulfil all their obligations under the Bill.
	I want to move on to a much meatier and more important subject—a matter that touched me and many other members of the Committee when we heard representations on it. Amendment No. 25 would add to clause 59 the words:
	"This section shall apply to all adopted persons, whether adopted before or after the coming into force of this Act."
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) has tabled a similar amendment so I am sure that ours will receive his support.
	The clause deals with the disclosure of protected information about adults and was much amended in Committee—thank goodness. For some extraordinary reason, which we have still not fathomed, the Government actually proposed a retrogressive step: to deny people the right of access to information to which they have been entitled since 1976 under the Adoption Act 1976. No one could understand the reason for that. None of the witnesses who appeared before the Special Standing Committee could understand it. None of the representations that we received could explain it. The proposal caused great distress, but I am glad that again—albeit at the 11th hour—the Government had a change of heart and we achieved some improvements in the Bill.
	The lives of an enormous number of people were irreversibly touched by adoption—as far back as the 1940s, in many cases—but the Bill will have little or no effect on them.
	It is right that we are putting in place new structures for the future. We need to overhaul the whole process to improve the adoption system and the chances of children in care now and in the future to get a proper start in life, but we must also have some regard to the fall-out from some of the past mistakes and problems in the adoption system. That is what the amendment addresses.
	In my involvement with the Bill and the subject of adoption, I have been particularly touched by the approaches from older women especially, including those in my constituency who gave up their children for adoption in very difficult circumstances—often with a high degree of pressure, verging on coercion—to people such as those with whom we are dealing in the Bill.
	In effect, we are talking about a past generation who lived under very different social standards. Many people were worried about the original Bill, which would have prevented the contact between adopted children and their birth parents in the future. As I have said, the Government did a U-turn on that, but we need to apply the Bill to the forgotten generation of birth mothers from the post-war years especially.
	Many mothers were forced to give up their children for adoption because of social stigma, and adoptive parents were encouraged to pass off the child as their own genetic son or daughter. In many cases, the Bill represents the very last chance for those people, in their twilight years, to establish contact with sons and daughters who were given away for adoption, often reluctantly. However, we contend that contact should be established sensitively, and only with all the proper controls and balances through an intermediary third party and only if the adopted adult agrees. Those must be the absolute minimum requirements, but the demand is there.
	We have only to consider the fact that, since section 26 of the Children Act 1975 came into force, 70,000-plus adopted adults in England and Wales have received their birth records, enabling them to establish links with their birth parents if they so wish. Some 90 per cent. of non-searching adopted people agree to have some form of contact with the birth parent who initiates an inquiry.
	I fully appreciate that, in practice, all this will be fraught with problems, not least the deficiencies in past record keeping. We will obviously need to prescribe limitations on the level of search undertaken, but such searches are becoming easier all the time, with far greater access to computerised information, electoral registers going online and so on. I contend that, whatever the mechanical problems, the principle is right. I hope that the Government will accept the principle. I should be happy to withdraw the amendment if the Government want to go away and introduce something that may be more workable in practice.
	So long as we have a proper balance of rights in favour of those adoptees who do not wish to be found, I cannot understand the objections to the amendment. What we are seeking to do, after all, is to give those women the same rights as those enjoyed by women in Canada, New Zealand and, now, Australia—all of which allowed access to birth records in the 1980s and 1990s. I hope that we can use some of the good practice guidance and continue to apply it to future adoptions.
	That is the crux of amendment No. 25, but if the Government are not prepared to adopt that suggestion, we have provided an alternative: new clause 1, which deals with siblings. We suggest that siblings should be given rather greater powers to be able to approach adoption agencies with a view to establishing contact with their brothers and sisters from whom they were parted at an early age. Siblings are often forgotten in the adoption process.
	Many people argue about whether birth parents were right to give up children for adoption, or whether they had any choice and how much they may have been coerced. Siblings, in all cases, have played no part in the decision-making process, but they have just as much right to make contact with a lost brother or sister, whether they were taken away for adoption while they remained in the family context, or whether children collectively were placed in care and later broken up and adopted individually.
	Siblings in care tend to have more complex families than other children. Research reveals a particular lack of contact with paternal siblings. There are placement problems for sibling groups especially—taking on a whole group of brothers and sisters is a much taller order, and they tended to be split up or to stay in care or in separate foster placements. Research shows that, according to self-reports, the loss of a sibling can involve the loss of a lifetime's close and loving relationship, the loss of support in adversity, the loss of a shared history, the loss of a sense of kinship and the loss of a resource for the individual's development of identity.
	This is a poorly researched area of adoption. We lack detailed information about the extent of sibling separations involved in adoptions, and sibling group placement patterns are, typically, not monitored. Surely, however, there is even more justification to give them greater legal standing to try to establish contact with other adopted siblings on an equal basis. That is our case behind new clause 1. This is an important area, and there are many hundreds and thousands of people who have been affected by adoptions in the past for whom the Bill will have no beneficial effect whatever, as it is not retrospective.
	New clause 4 deals with an issue for which there was sympathy on both sides of the Committee. It is an issue of great principle, and the new clause is simple and self-explanatory. It is a fundamental right of individuals to be told that they are adopted if they have not been given that information by the time they become adults at 18. Usually, adopted children should have been told that information before they reach the age of 18, sensitively and at an appropriate time, by their adopted parents.
	The new clause deals only with a very small percentage of adoptions as, increasingly, the Bill will be dealing with older children who obviously know that their adopted families are not their birth parents as they were not babies when they were taken away. Most of the Bill targets such children. Many hundreds of babies will still be adopted each year, however, and will have no knowledge of their origins unless they are told when they are old enough to understand. We want to protect them from all the angst and complications of such a bombshell coming later in life when they eventually find out that they are adopted, having had no clue, inkling or suggestion for many years.
	We have heard of cases, through our research for this Bill, of people who found out that they were adopted only at a very advanced age—in their 60s and 70s—and, in many cases, only after their birth parents had died. Often, that is the trigger to their finding out the information, by which time, of course, they have lost any chance of making contact with their birth parents. It is a fundamental human right for everyone to be told of his or her origins. If that information is not provided by the adoptive parents, the state has a duty to make it available to the adopted person on reaching maturity, through placing a requirement on the appropriate adoption agency. The state, after all, gives legal legitimacy to the status of adoption—a status that is manufactured, for want of a better word—and it therefore has a duty.

Hilton Dawson: In Committee I described the new clause as ghastly, but not because of the intention behind it, which I acknowledge is good. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the issue of informing adopted young people about their origins should play a large part in social work training and in the assessment of potential adoptive applicants. I am sure he intends the proposal to lie at the back of everything to ensure good practice from authorities. Is not it too crude to say that the state will tell people this information at the age of 18? Should there not be better ways of approaching this issue than the one he suggests?

Tim Loughton: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I recall the word "ghastly" being flung around the Committee Room when we discussed a similar subject. This is a last resort provision. As I think I have said—and as I want to finish by saying—it is a revelation that needs to be handled with the utmost sensitivity. People do not want to receive—I think this was the analogy that I used—on their 18th birthday, along with a tax return and a congratulations card from their MP, a letter in an anonymous brown envelope saying, "Dear Mr. Smith, by the way, you're adopted. Congratulations." Obviously, that is not the way we want to proceed. The best way must be for the adoptive parent to give that information when he or she deems it most appropriate.
	When that does not happen, as a last resort the 18-year-old is entitled to be told that information. The state has a duty of care to ensure that the manufactured relationship of adoption is maintained in everyone's best interest. It is not a question of the state sticking its nose in. We are talking about the state monitoring something that it has created through the legal resources of the adoption process.
	The Minister and other Government Members raised practical problems about the keeping of records. The measure is not retrospective and it is not intended to be. Given all the other requirements that are being placed on adoption agencies in the Bill—keeping proper records, providing proper information for potential reunions, the adoption contact register and the need for ongoing monitoring of adoption to gauge the need for adoption support services—if an agency cannot go to the trouble of keeping track of an adoptee's 18th birthday, it is not discharging its many other responsibilities effectively.
	The issue has other serious implications. For example, adopted 18-year-olds need the information to avoid incestuous contact with siblings who may be brought up in the same area unbeknown to them. I fully appreciate the argument of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). Much better mechanisms could be used and the issue must be handled sensitively. It is up to the agencies to devise appropriate ways to impart the information. Hopefully, the knowledge that the revelation about adoption will take place at some stage around the adopted person's 18th birthday should encourage adoptive parents to give information to their adopted son or daughter in the fulness of time, at an appropriate moment of their choosing.
	In Committee, the Minister said that she was sympathetic and promised to consider the matter in more detail. Indeed, on 21 March she wrote us a useful and detailed letter, saying that she had taken the point on board and was minded to change regulations as a point of best practice to encourage prospective adoptive parents to sign a form of contract saying that they would impart the information to their children at the most appropriate time. I am encouraged by that and welcome it.
	New clause 4 is still necessary, however, because the Minister's letter and explanation gave no indication of how that process would be monitored. Also, as the letter says, no provision has been made for any legal enforcement process. That is why we are revisiting the matter in the new clause today. It is too important to leave aside. We cannot take the risk that certain adoptive parents, for whatever strange reason, will choose not to give that information to their adopted son or daughter. I am not convinced that the monitoring processes are in place. Certainly, the new recommendations lack teeth as they cannot be legally enforced.
	I am talking about a fundamental human right. If the adopted person is not informed and they find out at an inappropriate time later in life, it could have the most damaging consequences. That is what the new clause attempts to avoid.
	In this group, the Opposition have tabled three amendments and two new clauses, which are well intentioned, and which build on some of the responses that the Minister rightly made to many of the issues that we raised in Committee—I am glad that she has made some positive moves. We want to crystallise those moves and put them more clearly on the face of the Bill to send out the message that that information is an important part of the adoption process.

Kevin Brennan: I will keep my remarks brief, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) having taken up 23 of the 44 minutes available.
	I remind the House that amendment No. 147, which I tabled, relates to something that I raised on Second Reading—and I note the conversion of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen who have taken up the issue and tabled amendments to the same effect. I welcome that. I hope to persuade the Government to undergo a similar conversion, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I will also comment on Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52.
	In addition to raising the matter on Second Reading, I moved a new clause in Committee on 18 December 2001 and spoke on the Government new clause introduced in Committee on 10 January, which is now clause 59. I met the Minister in February, along with representatives of agencies, and subsequently corresponded with her on the issue. The Government's position has shifted, which I welcome, because the Bill now contains clause 59, which allows for a mechanism whereby information on adoption can be disclosed to a birth relative when someone reaches adulthood. However, that will affect only adoptions that take place after the Bill comes into effect. So the day that it comes into law, it will apply to and benefit precisely no one, and will not benefit anyone directly for many years.
	If it is right to allow people to have that opportunity in the future, why is it not right to give it to people who have been adopted before the Bill comes into effect, and their relatives? The Government have conceded that legislation can be retrospective. Indeed, that was the case in the 1970s when the original right was given to adopted persons to seek out their birth records. The Government have also conceded that contact is usually welcomed when it has occurred under current provisions.
	My amendment would mean only that people would be asked whether they wanted contact rather than having that contact forced on them. The Minister made it clear to me in meetings and discussions that the provision would divert resources and attention away from the Bill's main purpose. Today we debated one part of the Bill that will get a great deal of attention, but the aspect that I am raising—the problem with birth relatives—has not received enough attention.
	I remind my hon. Friend about Government guidelines issued by the Department of Health on intermediary services for birth relatives. In the context of Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52, is she minded to introduce regulations that would give statutory force to the good practice guidance? That would be welcome, but the intention is not clear. Although I think that that should be stipulated in the Bill, I am still interested to know whether it is in part the reason for the amendments. We have to consider why we are doing something in clause 59 which, because of the nature of modern adoption, will benefit a tiny number of people in 20 years' time, rather than helping people now. If the Bill works properly, we will not need the clause for future adoptions.
	Hon. Members will know that about a year ago the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents successfully reunited three triplets, Gillian, David and Helena. It had to go to court to do so. Yesterday it issued a press release, which will not be covered by the media because in the glare of perhaps more glamorous events, no one is interested in the issue. However, it is fundamental and serious, and the media should focus attention on it.
	The triplets were reunited because they were allowed to gain the information that they needed to find out about their identity. Mr. Justice Sumner, in his judgment on that case, said:
	"We are still faced with an urgent need to review the legislation that impedes birth relatives' opportunities for search and reunion."

Hilton Dawson: I support every word that my hon. Friend has said. Is he aware of the work that is coming from the Registrar-General's office? In a praiseworthy attempt to give people privacy, it would seem to be offering the draconian prospect that in future, people who have been adopted will have a great deal more difficulty in tracing their relatives and birth families over a period of 100 years.

Kevin Brennan: Yes, I am aware of that, and I am concerned about it. I hope, with my hon. Friend's help, to draw the matter to the Government's attention over the coming weeks and months. What is proposed would be a retrograde step.
	People have written to me from all over the United Kingdom, and all over the world. I have received letters from Australia, for example. The issue matters even if the media will not cover it. It has an impact on people's lives. We have the opportunity to end the culture of secrets and lies that has surrounded adoption over the years. This is about justice, compassion and the most fundamental thing of all—family. I hope that the Minister will be able to make some helpful remarks. I also hope that if the issue is not pressed to a vote this evening, there will be further discussion later in another place.

Sandra Gidley: I shall greatly curtail my remarks because I do not want to repeat too much of what has already been said. I support most of the amendments, especially those that seek to provide retrospective permission. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) raised the issue in Committee. It seems wrong that someone who is adopted after the Bill is enacted will be able to obtain the information, while someone who was adopted before that will not. However, not everyone thinks in that way.
	There is a feeling that if a provision has a retrospective effect, that could be unfair on those who put up a child for adoption before enactment, because they would not have known what the long-term effect would be. Even today, there is a parallel with sperm donation. There was a proposal—I think that it came from Lady Warnock—that in future perhaps it would be beneficial if children born as a result of artificial insemination by donor knew the identity of the sperm donor.
	There are other implications, too. I have been struck by the strength of feeling of women—it usually is women, because they live longer—who want to know where they come from. It is important to them to have that information. We are talking about a last chance, and I support the amendments that would provide it.
	I am less happy with new clause 4. It is unnecessary and very much a backstop. It is well intentioned, but I would find difficulty in supporting it.

Robert Walter: I support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). In an ideal world, the provisions would be unnecessary. However, we do not live in such a world. It is a fundamental right of those who have been adopted, when they reach adulthood, to know what their origins are.
	The subject came home to me vividly, as I mentioned in Committee, when I served on the Committee that considered the plight of child migrants in Australia. I am pleased that the Australian Government are now providing some assistance. However, the press reports seemed to be wide of the mark in terms of the number of migrants who went to Australia, which was closer to 10,000 than 3,500.
	The one thing that all those people wanted to know was where they came from; even in their 50s and 60s, they wanted to know that. Someone who has been adopted, even in the most appalling circumstances of abuse, as those children were, should have a fundamental right to know why they went through that life-shattering experience. I therefore support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

Jacqui Smith: This subject has provoked considerable debate, both in Committee and on Report, but until now there has been considerable movement by the Government in response to concerns about the disclosure of information. In the remaining ten minutes, I shall concentrate on the main issues raised this evening: information for prospective adopters, the retrospective aspects of the access to information provisions in the legislation, and people's right to know that they are adopted.
	We had a lengthy and probably futile debate in Committee about the distinction between "may" and "must". I reiterate my belief that the amendment is not necessary. I made it clear when we debated the issue that the Government intended to introduce regulations covering the provision of information for prospective adopters, and I accept the contention of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that it is crucial to provide that information.
	I am sure that hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that we gave a commitment to introduce regulations to ensure that information is made available at three important points. First, there should be a summary about the child at the linking stage; secondly, there should be a full matching report on the child before the matching recommendation by the adoption panel and the decision by the agency; thirdly, after time to consider the full matching report, the prospective adopters, if they wish to proceed to preparations for the placement, should be provided with a written proposal setting out its terms.
	I assure hon. Members that those regulations will oblige agencies to disclose information in prescribed circumstances, as I have spelled out. We shall therefore ensure that the current position is improved; I agree with hon. Members that it is unsatisfactory that potential adopters are not provided with the information that they need.
	On retrospection, I accept that the intention of amendments Nos. 25 and 147 is to enable someone to apply for information about a protected adult, irrespective of whether they were adopted before or after the commencement of the relevant provisions. I shall explain the Government's difficulties with those proposals, but I shall also outline the positive steps that we can take to create better opportunities for people to access information, regardless of whether the adoption took place before or after the Bill became law.
	If the legislation was retrospective there would be massive problems. In many cases, adoption agencies would be required to trace people who were adopted many years ago, and were thus difficult to trace. There would be a huge volume of potential applications; 875,000 people have been adopted since the Adoption of Children Act 1926.
	I thoroughly concur with the claim by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that he has pressed extremely hard on that issue. He was one of the first hon. Members to raise the issue and he has been diligent in pursuing it. However, I disagree with my hon. Friend when he suggests that the Government's concern for balancing priorities for adoption agencies is wrong.
	In the context of past adoptions, I have every sympathy for the feelings of those who want to open up contact with a birth relative, but our principal policy aim, as many hon. Members have said, is to help the vulnerable and in some cases damaged children who need adoptive parents now. If the proposals were enacted, I would be concerned about the priorities of adoption agencies being shifted, and the possibility that that might draw resources away from our primary aim.
	As I said, I am sympathetic, but I do not share the view of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that changing the legislation would necessarily achieve the heartfelt aim that many people seek. There is the dilemma of raising the hopes and expectations of so many siblings and birth parents, and there would be considerable practical difficulties for agencies to face.
	Before 1984, the obligations for adoption agencies to keep and record information were not as comprehensive as they are now. Many records exist only in part and others have been lost. Many adoptions were arranged privately, and in those cases there are often very few records, other than the report about the placement, which the adoption agency may or may not hold. I would not want to hold out to people whose wish I understand, a potentially false hope that legislation will be made retrospective.
	I now come to the practical steps that we as a Government can take. Stakeholders have acknowledged that under existing regulations, adoption agencies already have wide discretion to disclose information in their records, where that is consistent with their functions. The problem is that existing practice is inconsistent, and guidance on disclosure of information has been criticised by some stakeholders as being ambiguous. In the light of those views, the Government will issue new guidance to encourage adoption agencies to take a more constructive approach to helping both birth parents and adopted people.
	There has been criticism of the adoption contact register, which provides scope to bring together adopted people and their relatives. Since the launch of the register there has been only one further attempt to promote it. I undertake to engage in more proactive and frequent promotion of the register through adoption agencies and key stakeholders, and through the media at times of public interest in adoption. We are considering ways to achieve that, and will consult adoption stakeholders.
	Hon. Members have referred to the guidance issued by the Department of Health on the role of intermediary services, which can provide sensitive support and counselling to those seeking to make contact with a relative. In August 2000 we issued guidance on the role of intermediary services, and we are actively considering how further to foster best practice among those services. Under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 we will supply funding from April 2003 for one leading provider to act as a national focal point for intermediary services and to offer a resource for adoption agencies.
	I hope that in the light of those comments on the difficulties of making clause 59 apply to past adoptions, and my commitment to help improve the current arrangements, hon. Members will not press their amendments.
	Finally, in Committee we discussed the right to know, and I expressed my sympathy then for the intention behind a similar amendment. I have no doubt that the adopted person should be informed of his adoption. The essential questions are who is best placed to inform the adopted person, and how and when that should happen.
	Once again, there would be considerable practical difficulties in giving an adoption agency a legal duty to trace, track down, make contact with and make arrangements to talk to all adopted people—if it were a legal duty, it would have to cover all adopted people—at the age of 18. But as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, there are practical things that we can do to help—
	It being Seven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	Amendment negatived.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 59
	 — 
	Disclosing protected information about adults

Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 33, line 37, at end insert—
	'(7) This section shall apply to all adopted persons, whether adopted before or after the coming into force of this Act.'.—[Tim Loughton.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 252.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment made: No. 254, in page 31, line 29, leave out subsection (2).—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 55
	 — 
	Restrictions on disclosure of protected etc. information

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 32, line 15, leave out "is necessary to" and insert—
	'the agency has obtained from the Registrar General on an application under section 77(4) and any other information which would'.
	No. 50, in page 32, line 28, at end insert—
	'(6) Regulations may authorise or require an adoption agency to disclose protected information to a person who is not an adopted person'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 58
	 — 
	Disclosing information to adopted adult

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 33, line 5, leave out from beginning to "unless" and insert—
	'any information which would enable him to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 59
	 — 
	Disclosing protected information about adults

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 33, line 37, at end insert—
	'or to a request for information which the agency is authorised or required to disclose in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of section 55(6)'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 60
	 — 
	Disclosing protected information about children

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 34, line 33, at end insert—
	'or to a request for information which the agency is authorised or required to disclose in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of section 55(6)'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 61
	 — 
	Counselling

Amendment made: No. 301, in page 35, line 11, leave out from first "society" to "registered" in line 12 and insert—
	'an organisation within section 131(2A)(b) or an adoption society which is'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 62
	 — 
	Other provision to be made by regulations

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 35, line 38, leave out "an adopted person" and insert—
	'any person (including an adopted person)'.
	No. 55, in page 35, line 40, leave out "his case" and insert—
	'the case of an adopted person specified in the request (or, as the case may be, in the applicant's case)'.
	No. 44, in page 36, line 1, after "a" insert "prescribed".
	No. 45, in page 36, line 6, after "a" insert "prescribed".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 63
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendments made: No. 302, in page 36, line 24, leave out from "an" to "are" in line 25 and insert "organisation within section 131(2A)(b)".
	No. 66, in page 36, line 32, leave out "(c)" and insert—
	'(2A) The power of the Scottish Ministers or of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make regulations under section 61(2) includes power to make—
	(a) any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision,
	(b) any transitory, transitional or saving provision,
	which the person making the regulations considers necessary or expedient.
	(3)'.
	No. 67, in page 36, line 34, leave out "(d)" and insert "(4)".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 77
	 — 
	Connections between the register and birth records

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 42, line 10, leave out from "search" to "in" and insert—
	'(2A) Any such information, and any other information which would enable an adopted person to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth, may only be disclosed by the Registrar General'.
	No. 57, in page 42, line 13, leave out "such information" and insert—
	'any information mentioned in subsection (2A)'.
	No. 58, in page 42,, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
	'relating to the adopted person which is mentioned in subsection (2A)'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Disclosure of birth records by registrar general

Amendments made: No. 303, in page 81, line 8, leave out from first "society" to end of line 9 and insert—
	'an organisation within section 131(2A)(b) or an adoption society which is'.
	No. 304, in page 81, line 40, leave out from first "society" to end of line 41 and insert—
	'an organisation within section 131(2A)(b) or an adoption society which is'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 78
	 — 
	Adoption Contact Register

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 43, line 23, leave out "specified" and insert "prescribed".—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Further consideration adjourned.—[Dan Norris.]
	Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered on Monday 20 May.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Packaging and packaging waste

That this House takes note of European Document No. 15194/01, draft Directive amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste; welcomes it as a positive step towards achieving high levels of environmental and single market protection, whilst limiting the impact upon UK business; and supports the Government's negotiating line.—[Dan Norris.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages relating to the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill have been received.—[Dan Norris.]

VACCINATION POLICY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]

Ian Gibson: Vaccines have changed the lives of children and their parents by reducing the risk of contracting crippling childhood diseases. Experience with smallpox and polio provides clear evidence of that, and shows that vaccines can be a most effective means of controlling serious infective disease in human populations. That observation is especially important in the context of the developing world where treatment of diseases such as tuberculosis, AIDS and many parasitic diseases by conventional chemotherapeutic means, when they exist, is impractical or even impossible for reasons of infrastructure and logistics. In those cases, preventive public health measures, including immunisation, must be the way to reduce the disease burden.
	The market for vaccines has, in the past, been regarded as insufficiently profitable by the larger pharmaceutical companies. In the UK, there has been a progressive contraction of conventional vaccine production since the 1980s. Vaccines were seen as low-value products. In the UK, the main producer of conventional vaccines was Evans, which is now part of Powderject. During the 1990s, there was a resurgence of interest in vaccine development and production, fuelled by the availability of recombinant DNA technology to produce clean antigens. This development has resulted in the creation of some effective vaccines for infectious diseases that are difficult to treat and have a high morbidity or mortality attached to them—hepatitis and meningitis, for example. These vaccines are regarded as high-value products. In the UK, GlaxoSmithKline is a major company player, although a number of smaller biotech-based companies are also active in this area.
	Among the most promising new developments in vaccinology is the development of "naked DNA" vaccines—a stretch of DNA from pathogens containing the genes coding key antigenic components. The idea is that when this material is injected into the skin, it is taken up by host cells, which then make the antigen in situ. This forms a depot of antigen, which provides a continuous immunological stimulus.
	A second development, pioneered by Powderject, is the formulation of the antigen-vaccine in powder form. This is introduced into the subject by means of a high-pressure air jet. This transdermal route is known to produce an immune response at least as good as the conventional, needle-based intradermal injection. It is painless, and, being in the form of a powder rather than the more conventional liquid, it is more stable in adverse conditions.
	There is a particular problem in the case of diseases such as smallpox that have been eradicated, or diseases such as anthrax that do not normally present a serious risk to human populations, but which can be used for bioterrorism. As the need for vaccines for such diseases disappeared or diminished, the incentive for maintaining a vaccine manufacturing facility for them also diminished. There has therefore been a rundown in manufacturing capacity.
	With the present bioterrorism threat, there is now concern that sufficient vaccine stocks will not be available to protect military or civilian populations. There is now only limited commercial production capacity for smallpox and anthrax vaccines. Smallpox has been eliminated, so the availability of the vaccine has become scarce. Limited stocks are held by the World Health Organisation and by some national Governments.
	As these diseases have either gone or become uncommon, the development of novel vaccines is either difficult or impossible. There are no large populations of susceptible, at-risk people in which clinical trials to prove safety and efficacy can be carried out. It would be unacceptable to carry out challenge studies on such vaccines using normal subjects. The individuals would be put at risk, and there would be a serious risk of the pathogen escaping into the general population. Such vaccines can be tested only by examining immunised subjects for the presence of certain markers of immunity.
	To meet the present threat, reliance must be placed on running up the old manufacturing methods as quickly as possible. There are few companies worldwide with the appropriate plant and expertise to hand. Powderject has been awarded the UK Government contract to produce the smallpox vaccine. However, it does not have the technology in-house, and is having to go to a Danish company—Bavarian Nordic—for the technology and supply of the vaccine. It will then have to develop the plant and methodology in-house to produce it. This will be the case for any other company or organisation that takes on such manufacture de novo.
	Acambis would appear to have been involved in smallpox vaccine production in recent years under contract to the US Government. The US vaccine is based on a different strain of organism from that used in the UK. I do not know whether the differences between the strains are significant in terms of levels of efficacy, as I am not aware of any head-to-head comparison of the two vaccines having been undertaken when smallpox was a serious health risk. Both vaccines were obviously effective, however, in providing populations with some measure of protection. I look forward to hearing from the Minister which vaccine strain has been used in Britain, and whether it was the more effective. There were several forms of TB vaccine in use in the 1950s: one form gave good protection in the UK but not in the US, and vice versa.
	The only UK capacity that I know of for the production of anthrax vaccine is at the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research at Porton Down, which has upgraded its production facilities recently. It still uses a process based on older technology, however. There might also be other research and development enterprises going on elsewhere. I would imagine that in the next few months there will be a great deal of activity, given 11 September, the anthrax outbreak and the other scares in the United States.
	The problem of large-scale production of old vaccines against defunct or rare disease organisms has been highlighted by recent events. They have provided effective bio-weapons for use by terrorist regimes, and can be produced on a large scale for such purposes as a very low-tech enterprise. The Government should take responsibility, and ensure that the country has the capacity to respond rapidly to such threats. It should not be left to the whim of industries, which by and large do not act as charities and will want due reward.
	Other organisms could be used by bioterrorists—for example, plague and the ebola virus, which could have a devastating effect on an unprotected population. It could, I think, be argued that the Government should establish its own vaccine production organisation, capable of ensuring effective and timely responses to biological threats.
	Vaccination has always entailed the problem of convincing the public that no risk is attached. There is no such thing as a risk-free world or technology, and when scientists and politicians stand up and imply that there is no risk, they are likely to be disbelieved. All the arguments need to be put on the table.
	Sir Paul Nurse, a recent Nobel laureate from this country, expressed his views on the politics of scientific evidence not long ago. He said that
	"there is no doubt that what the Government is saying is true on MMR and that the evidence that it's accepted and safe is very good. Like all things, and in science in particular, you can't be certain of everything and there will be a small risk. In MMR the adverse risk seems to be very, very low to almost non-existent. I think the point is that they"—
	politicians—
	"need to communicate the evidence. This is where there is a dumbing down. I think they are really frightened to talk about science because politicians come from a different background. They are not happy with it and they are used to having to deal with certainties—and science doesn't deal with certainties."
	Submitting a study to a scientific process rather than to partially informed opinion is crucial to the determination of whether a vaccine actually causes a given reaction. If undertaken carelessly or without scientific rigour the study results will be inconclusive at best, may result in the inappropriate withdrawal from use of a valuable vaccine, or at worst may result in a population's exposure to a dangerous vaccine.
	In the United States there are controversies about the safety of vaccines. The US has addressed the problem by establishing an immunisation safety review committee—a multi-disciplinary committee with members whose expertise is in epidemiology, biostatistics, paediatrics, public health, immunology, neurology, infectious disease, risk perception, genetics, ethics, health communication and other subjects.
	The committee helps to communicate to the public the state of knowledge regarding any particular immunisation safety concern. It produces reports, and has so far been able to convince the public of the uncertainties surrounding any new vaccine coming on to the market. It has recommended to the US Department of Health the creation of a panel to examine parents' perceptions of the risks and benefits to develop better communication tools to them and their doctors. I suggest to the Minister that the Government might follow that example, and address the fears of those caught in doubt or dilemma over the MMR vaccine. Such people may be worried by the unexplained rise in the number of diagnosed cases of autism, although no link has been proven scientifically.
	Where will we draw the line on vaccination policies in future? How many shots will an individual need for nations to feel protected? If we expose our immune systems to too many toxins, especially in a very short time span, there may be deleterious effects—as has been implied in the context of Gulf war syndrome. Given increasingly visible scientific developments, the vaccination scenario for the future may be very different from the current one. New delivery systems for vaccination shots may prove more effective by mimicking natural infection mechanisms. An example is the aerosol delivery of the measles vaccine.
	The more we know about the nature of the human genome, the more we start to realise the existence of genetic differences between individuals. That may not just translate into a susceptibility to certain illness such as cardiovascular disorders; it could indicate resistance to certain infections. The future might well hold tailor-made provisions for vaccination, with a profile-adjusted individual vaccination plan that could prevent any possible detrimental effects linked to immune reactions.
	Although individuals ask for 100 per cent. security in everything, they realise that it may not be achievable. Governments who play that card and win public confidence by covering up uncertainty and playing the "safe politics" game run great risks. The consequences of such reductionist approaches in political and social debate may yet come to haunt us. The public need to know the risks, and to feel empowered to act accordingly.
	I have tried to raise some of the issues to which the subject of vaccination gives rise. Given that biotechnology is coming on-stream at a great rate, and that many diseases are appearing in certain countries for the first time, I believe that there will be an explosion in research and development into new vaccines. It is time for a review of, for example, the relationship between global warming and the new diseases. We need to examine the new vaccines, and our approach should consider how best to protect our population further.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing this debate, and on choosing a subject that is of immense importance to the health and lives of people across the country. My hon. Friend is right to say that we should not underestimate the impact on public health of immunisation programmes such as the NHS programme. Immense improvements have been made not through treatment but through vaccination—a fact that is of worldwide significance.
	It is because of the immunisation programme that the incidence of childhood disease in this country has fallen to its lowest ever levels, greatly reducing morbidity and mortality from such diseases. In 1940, before vaccination was introduced, there were over 46,000 cases of diphtheria. Recent data show that, some 60 years later, the annual number of cases has reduced to single figures. In 1940, there were over 400,000 cases of measles, but recent data show that the rate is now less than 200 cases per year. In the same year, there were over 50,000 cases of pertussis—whooping cough—but recent data show that there are now less than 3,000 cases per year.
	In 1989, when monitoring began, there were more than 24,000 cases of rubella. The most recent figures show a rate of less than 100 cases a year. Here, the most important issue is the prevention of congenital rubella syndrome. As a result of measles, mumps and rubella vaccination in young children, there were no such cases in England and Wales between 1997 and 1999. Childhood vaccination has repeatedly been demonstrated as cost-effective—indeed, even cost-saving—and the World Bank has identified it as one of the most cost-effective health strategies.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that vaccination is a rapidly moving field. Recent developments in this country include the introduction of meningococcal C conjugate vaccine. Before its introduction, there was an increase in the number of notifications of, and laboratory-confirmed cases of, meningococcal disease, and a relatively greater increase in cases of disease caused by group C infection, particularly in older teenagers. In the light of that increase, the UK took a leading role in developing a new meningococcal C conjugate vaccine, and was the first country in the world to introduce it.
	In 1994, the Department of Health funded an accelerated research programme to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the new vaccine. It involved collaboration with the Public Health Laboratory Service, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, the institute of child health, and the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. My hon. Friend referred to that centre, and I shall discuss it later. That is an interesting example of work carried out in partnership with vaccine manufacturers such as those that he mentioned. They have the capacity to respond and to adapt, and were keen to work with the Department on developing a new programme.
	The meningitis C campaign, which was introduced to offer the vaccine to everyone under the age of 18, has been extended to include older age groups. The programme has been completed, and has had a dramatic effect on all immunised age groups, resulting in the near disappearance of meningitis C disease in people under the age of 20. The incidence of serogroup C disease in targeted age groups fell by more than 80 per cent., and the number of deaths among the under-20s decreased from 78 in 1998–99 to 11 in 2000–01. The provisional data for the last year show that we have not had a laboratory-confirmed case of meningitis C in infants under one year of age since the beginning of December last year. From July 2001 to date, there have been only five cases of meningitis C in the 15 to 17-year-old age group, whereas we saw 73 cases in the same period three years ago. Those are recent examples of the huge impact of developments in vaccination programmes. We have also seen developments in flu vaccines.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North mentioned issues for the future and the progress that needs to be made. He will know that the chief medical officer has recently published a report entitled "Getting Ahead of the Curve: A Strategy for Combating Infectious Diseases", and a key aspect of future policy is continuing to secure the benefits of safe and effective vaccines in future. Other aspects include influenza and pneumococcal vaccine; coverage in childhood immunisation programmes; the examination and introduction of new vaccines; and research and investment, including international research to develop a new vaccine against HIV.
	My hon. Friend asks what more can be done. He raised issues connected with the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research—CAMR—and what role the Government could play in ensuring strategic capacity for the manufacture of vaccines. It is rarely likely for it to be sensible or economic for the Government to manufacture the vaccines that we might need for a population of 50 million, with the problems of patents, property rights and licence fees. Vaccine production can be achieved most economically for markets bigger than the UK, so it is not a worthwhile use of resources for the Government to manufacture vaccines directly. However, we can work in partnership to great effect, as we have done with three vaccine manufacturers to develop the meningococcal C conjugate vaccine.
	CAMR is a special health authority, funded by the Department of Health and located alongside the Ministry of Defence establishment at Porton Down. As part of its work CAMR undertakes small-scale vaccine manufacture and research. Current work includes the manufacture of anthrax vaccine under a five-year contract for the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend was right to refer to the importance of such work. There was no commercial producer of that vaccine because there was only a limited demand for it and it was not considered to be commercially profitable. However, in the UK there has been a long-standing demand for that vaccine for military personnel and therefore CAMR took on its development and production, albeit on a relatively small scale, in order to meet the Ministry of Defence need.
	The vaccine was not available in the United States, but since 11 September and the anthrax releases there, substantial demand has been generated and the vaccine is now being produced commercially. Where there is a military need, which is usually a low-volume need, or a requirement for capacity to respond rapidly, there remains a need for the Government to fund research and development for vaccines. We may also need to respond, as we have in the past with anthrax, to demand for vaccines. Before 11 September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health agreed to the establishment of a strategic response capability at CAMR, which is part of its long-term development.
	My hon. Friend raised several issues related to bioterrorism and our response to it. He will know that the planned response to any terrorist attack is co-ordinated between several Government Departments and agencies and facilitated by the civil contingency secretariat in the Cabinet Office. The Department of Health has issued guidance to regional and health authority directors covering the planning of the health service response to any deliberate release of biological and chemical agents and has issued guidance to regional directors of public health on mass decontamination and related matters. Further guidance has been issued to health authorities on the procedures to be followed in the event of the covert or overt release of smallpox, anthrax, plague, botulism or unknown biological or chemical agents.
	In October last year, the Public Health Laboratory Service also issued guidelines for action in the event of a deliberate release of smallpox. It is important that we have the right preparation and planning in place. That work is ongoing and has been part of the Department's activity for a long time.
	As part of its contingency planning since 1988, the Department has reviewed its stocks and supplies of medical countermeasures. Additional stockpiles of appropriate antibiotics and other medical countermeasures have been put in place, as have additional stocks of smallpox vaccine for use in the event of a bioterrorist attack.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has set out, in answers to parliamentary questions, many of the decisions taken in this connection, including the decision about the strain of vaccine. Advice about that decision was taken from across Government, especially from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. That is an important body, providing well-established independent expertise for the Department. It regularly reviews UK epidemiological evidence on disease and progress on vaccine development. It also has the important function of horizon scanning, so that priorities can be set against the assessments of disease burdens and the predicted pace of new vaccines.
	My hon. Friend referred to matters to do with communication, and the importance of providing people with accurate information. I agree that people need more information, and that they want it to be clear and comprehensible. When complex scientific matters are involved, that is often not a simple task. It is an important challenge, and we must accept that people increasingly want information in which they would not have been interested, and would not have expected, 20 or 30 years ago. That information is now very much part of current expectations of the health service.
	My hon. Friend mentioned MMR. Parents have understandably been worried about media stories over the past few months. The Department has conducted extensive research to find out parents' concerns, and to determine what sort of information they want. It is important that we answer the questions that people want to ask, and that we respond to their concerns in this area.

Ian Gibson: Is the uptake of the triple jab rising or falling? If it is falling, what is the likelihood that the trend might be reversed?

Yvette Cooper: The latest figures from the PHLS show that there was a dip in the level of MMR uptake among 16-month-olds between December and March. Interestingly, however, uptake in that age group showed an increase in April. The figures are available on the PHLS website.
	It is important that we continue to respond to people's concerns about MMR. That is why we have sent out new and substantial parent packs to GP surgeries and to NHS Direct. They provide more extensive information to respond to parents' queries and questions, and give more information about scientific research.
	The packs include statements from various independent bodies, because, in matters such as this, we must not rely solely on advice from the Department's experts. We need to turn to independent bodies such as the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners and many other organisations in this country and around the world. They have all advised us that MMR is the safest way to immunise children against what are very serious diseases. It is important to tell people the full facts about MMR, including the views of all the independent experts, and the single jabs. They have a right to have all the information.
	Vaccination policy is difficult, especially when the immunisation programme has been successful in largely eradicating a disease. Many younger people have no experience of the diseases that we are talking about, so the huge impact of the immunisation programme can be underestimated. That applies to many programmes across the board.

Ian Gibson: Will the Minister say whether there has been any increase in measles outbreaks in this country since the controversy arose? She gave me the figures for the triple MMR uptake, but is there any evidence in relation to a measles epidemic?

Yvette Cooper: There has not been a measles epidemic in this country, although there have been isolated outbreaks in various areas. The experience in Ireland is that isolated outbreaks can occur, and we need to take them seriously. The PHLS said today that the majority of parents are still having their children immunised with the MMR vaccine, but we must continue to take the issue extremely seriously and ensure that parents get the information they need.
	My hon. Friend spoke about looking to the future, whether in the areas of new technology, the human genome project or research. He is right that there are all kinds of exciting possibilities, with different technology and research coming to bear. There is extensive research into HIV and other diseases, but we do not know what the long-term possibilities will be. We must ensure that the system can respond rapidly to developments in technology and in progress.
	The experience of the meningitis C vaccine has been a powerful testimony to the capacity of the NHS in particular to respond rapidly to a new vaccine that is proven to be effective and have a big impact. This country was one of the first to introduce a meningitis C programme right across the childhood population. That is an immense tribute to those working in the NHS, in both primary care and schools. It is a testimony to the partnerships that the NHS has with the various companies involved and its capacity to deliver immunisation programmes. This is not simply a research or a technology issue: it is also a health service issue because, ultimately, immunisation programmes have to be delivered.
	My hon. Friend has raised a series of important points. I congratulate him again on securing this debate. This is an area in which I hope we will see further positive developments. We have had much to be thankful for, not simply over the past few years but over the past 40, 50 or 60 years.
	Question put and agreed to
	Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eight o'clock.